4 edits
Originally posted by PsychoPawnTo understand a pattern completely you need to know the whole thing,
So if you don't know how something began why bother trying to find out how it works? That's ridiculous and I sincerely hope that's not what you are suggesting.
We don't exactly know what gravity is, but we can still study what it does and what its effects are.
We don't know exactly how life began, but we can still study and find out how it evolves mean that a cell just popped into existence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
you do not have that in evolution, you only see a very small sliver and
it is in the here and now. The rest you fill in with assumptions and from
there grand theories are made, like evolution alone must be given
credit for the formation of the eye.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayYou don't have to see the whole puzzle to know that it's of Paris.
To understand a pattern completely you need to know the whole thing,
you do not have that in evolution, you only see a very small sliver and
it is in the here and now. The rest you fill in with assumptions and from
there grand theories are made, like evolution alone must be given
credit for the formation of the eye.
Kelly
We see what is in the here and now, but it is naive to the extreme to think that what wee see in the here and now is not evidence of what has been.
1 edit
Originally posted by PsychoPawnIf you have a puzzle and you have no idea how many pieces are in
You don't have to see the whole puzzle to know that it's of Paris.
We see what is in the here and now, but it is naive to the extreme to think that what wee see in the here and now is not evidence of what has been.
it and you only have a few or a lot, but don't know how many you
are missing, I'd say you could be completely wrong about what that
puzzle is really about.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJaySo what is your real point?
If you have a puzzle and you have no idea how many pieces are in
it and you only have a few or a lot, but don't know how many you
are missing, I'd say you could be completely wrong about what that
puzzle is really about.
Kelly
Just because we could be wrong doesn't mean that what we do know doesn't fit the evidence - it does.
The possibility of being wrong doesn't mean we hold these things on faith and the more we find out, the less likely we are of being wrong.
Originally posted by PsychoPawnI really think you need to look at that ice discussion closely, the
So what is your real point?
Just because we could be wrong doesn't mean that what we do know doesn't fit the evidence - it does.
The possibility of being wrong doesn't mean we hold these things on faith and the more we find out, the less likely we are of being wrong.
fact that if you didn't know that there was a some seasonal melting
going on it would have been very easy to think the layered method
suggests thousands of years had gone by. Now the thing that is
interesting is that you refuse to think you could be wrong about
other evidence, not that the your models don't work provided that
the evidence is what you think, but that the evidence really may
not mean what you think it does, in which case your whole foundation
of reason is built upon a pile of shifting sand and it could be
completely wrong. If you actually believe them to be true, to the
point you dismiss all other possible reasons, I'd say you have a very
healthly amount of faith.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayKelly, it has been stated many times on this forum that evolution does not pretend to offer certainty as to abiogenesis. It has finally struck me that you have not been able to separate evolution from abiogenesis, and the reason is to do with your thinking re creationism.
I also disagree with you on the weight of evidence, it is filled with many
presupposed assumptions I do not believe it is a clear cut as you
and others here say it is. The starting point alone where did everything
come from for me has never been answered by those that promote
evolution, and that is where creationist and many evolutionist part
company. ...[text shortened]... ocess or time so much, since I believe in the
process, and time doesn't really matter.
Kelly
Creationism makes certain, absolute and statements of 'Truth'. These cover what science is digging away at, ie the realities of life, and that really must get to you.
Here are more and more pieces of information coming up, and each of them, and the theories that are forming alongside and around that information that is being increasingly refined and adapted and honed are showing how creationism is not a 'theory', just a belief. That must frighten you, because it is taking away the certainty that you like; that's why you fight it so much, no?
Originally posted by snowinscotlandYes I know they are not the same, but the flow of the conversation
Kelly, it has been stated many times on this forum that evolution does not pretend to offer certainty as to abiogenesis. It has finally struck me that you have not been able to separate evolution from abiogenesis, and the reason is to do with your thinking re creationism.
Creationism makes certain, absolute and statements of 'Truth'. These cover wha ...[text shortened]... because it is taking away the certainty that you like; that's why you fight it so much, no?
I was in when I wrote that had to do with everything from the
Big Bang, creation, and evolution. Not trying to be difficult here but
it would be hard to justify everything I'm saying the flow of the
discussion if everything before isn't taken into account too.
Kelly
2 edits
Originally posted by KellyJayI think it would be very hard to 'go back' and find evidence for the development of the very early stages of life, but what we do have is all the evidence of what is within ourselves.
Yes I know they are not the same, but the flow of the conversation
I was in when I wrote that had to do with everything from the
Big Bang, creation, and evolution. Not trying to be difficult here but
it would be hard to justify everything I'm saying the flow of the
discussion if everything before isn't taken into account too.
Kelly
The first stage is the evidence of DNA, RNA et al, and possibly back to the question that first really shocked so many people: Could Humans and Apes have evolved from the same common ancestor?
That concept really offended people who believed that somehow humans were so 'special' that they could not possibly be associated with the 'dirty apes'. Unfortuneately the DNA evidence says 'Yes'. To find they are your closest relatives must have sent many of them into shock, but then into immediate denial and withdrawal back to what they wanted to believe.
However I don't think that is the end of the story. Even when/if we accept that, it is very understandable why we came to think and understand we actually really are special:- we are the top of the tree in terms of intellectual ability, no question. [That, BTW, does not mean we are smart enough to avoid making the earth uninhabitable for ourselves]. However it has meant that we have evolved many of our thinking patterns such that we have had survival instincts in thought too. eg if you think you are special, perhaps even 'selected', how much better are you going to think about yourself and 'yours', and what sort of advantage does that present in evolutionary terms. I think, 'Quite a lot', and the evidence is that these sets of thoughts are with us today, in the form of belief sets.
Anybody else have any thoughts on this?
1 edit
Originally posted by snowinscotland"Any thoughts about this?"
I think it would be very hard to 'go back' and find evidence for the development of the very early stages of life, but what we do have is all the evidence of what is within ourselves.
The first stage is the evidence of DNA, RNA et al, and possibly back to the question that first really shocked so many people: Could Humans and Apes have evolved from th us today, in the form of belief sets.
Anybody else have any thoughts on this?
Everytime we talk of humans as 'smart', meaning 'intelligent', then we have to define the very word 'intelligence'. There is no definition of 'iintelligence' covering everything.
Humanity is 'intelligent', most individuals are not. Hell, I haven't passed stoneage. I don't know how to cultivate the soil in order to grow vegetables without aid of books and instructions. I cannot catch any animals and kill them and prepare them for food. I will certainly starve to death before a year has passed. I don't know how to convert stones to iron, so I'm certainly not in the iron-age. But I can solve differential equations, I know why Sodium light is yellow, I know the age of the universe and program a computer with machine code. But only because I've read it in books, and attending lectures.
If for one point in near future we have a global fire that wipes out every book, and storing devices for information, reduce the humanity to a hundreth of what it is today (we will still be 60 million people on earth), how long will we survive as a specie? We have certainly start all over again from the beginning. Feed us from nature, protect ourselves from nature. Animals know how to do this, humans as individuals cannot.
I wouldn't say individuals are intelligent, but the sum of all humankind certainly is. We are ready for the stars. But as individuals we are soon dead.
Only some thoughts of mine.
Originally posted by FabianFnasI think you underestimate yourself, survival is within us as a species, because of individual instincts. However I might disagree with your other comment :- intelligence I think resides in the individual, put a group of people together and you soon come up with the 'design by committee', which invariably is poorer than the 'one line' design. Why? Because as a group we compromise by nature. Individually we can be as ruthless with our ideas/designs as we like. Take another's design, you keep the stuff you like(or don't understand) and improve the stuff you don't. Hence it is likely to improve, by evolution. (there's that word again lol).
"Any thoughts about this?"
Everytime we talk of humans as 'smart', meaning 'intelligent', then we have to define the very word 'intelligence'. There is no definition of 'iintelligence' covering everything.
Humanity is 'intelligent', most individuals are not. Hell, I haven't passed stoneage. I don't know how to cultivate the soil in order to grow veg ...[text shortened]... the stars. But as individuals we are soon dead.
Only some thoughts of mine.
However what I was thinking of was the concept that belief sets survive because they provide an advantage, both in the social way (local support, kill the infidel etc) and a personal way (able to meditate, calmness of spirit etc).
Originally posted by FabianFnasI don't think we (as population) are ready for the stars, not while the majority accept mythical creatures etc The planet needs to grow up alot on that respect.
"Any thoughts about this?"
Everytime we talk of humans as 'smart', meaning 'intelligent', then we have to define the very word 'intelligence'. There is no definition of 'iintelligence' covering everything.
Humanity is 'intelligent', most individuals are not. Hell, I haven't passed stoneage. I don't know how to cultivate the soil in order to grow veg ...[text shortened]... the stars. But as individuals we are soon dead.
Only some thoughts of mine.
Originally posted by snowinscotlandThe trouble with the evidence being just inside of us is that it is only
I think it would be very hard to 'go back' and find evidence for the development of the very early stages of life, but what we do have is all the evidence of what is within ourselves.
The first stage is the evidence of DNA, RNA et al, and possibly back to the question that first really shocked so many people: Could Humans and Apes have evolved from ...[text shortened]... th us today, in the form of belief sets.
Anybody else have any thoughts on this?
a snap shot, and people are painting a much larger picture of time
with just a small piece of information.
Kelly