@kellyjay saidOh dear, you really don't understand science at all, do you, probably best steer clear of the subject before you make yourself look even more silly.
Science is about testing and repeatability, and with that, we glean what we believe
either validates or invalidates our hypothesis. Now, if you don't believe you can
know what it is that your testing is showing you, what are you doing and why? If
there isn't a level of belief that what we are doing is going to show us something,
again, what are you doing and why?
If t ...[text shortened]... the good ones from the bad ones, if we cannot know? If we cannot know then
any explanation will do!
So let's look at your 'best possible explanation' idea. We know (from the fossil record and so on) that several species of hominid lived before and even during the ascendency of Homo Sapiens to become the dominant species. We co - existed with Neanderthals, who ritually buried their dead, and were likely our intellectual equals, and we even interbred with them, as can be proven by the study of our DNA. Our own species lived first in Africa for several tens of thousands of years, before migrating north and eventually colonizing the whole earth. In other words, we are a part of a process of hominid evolution, culminating so far in us, and all of this is evidential. Let's call the above (a)
Then there's (b) , which has it that a god put the first man and woman on earth, (made in his own image, so what do you think your god actually looks like, a man or a woman, or something in between?) and that a snake talked to them in the Garden of Eden.
Looking at (a) and (b) with the 'same critical eye', which would you say is the 'best possible explanation' for humankinds' first appearance on earth?
@indonesia-phil saidYou are quite free with setting up what you think is true to denounce what you consider false as if your facts are not disputable.
Oh dear, you really don't understand science at all, do you, probably best steer clear of the subject before you make yourself look even more silly.
So let's look at your 'best possible explanation' idea. We know (from the fossil record and so on) that several species of hominid lived before and even during the ascendency of Homo Sapiens to become the dominant speci ...[text shortened]... ', which would you say is the 'best possible explanation' for humankinds' first appearance on earth?
The only question I have been concerning myself with has been mindlessness or mind. It’s a binary choice I am not asking or telling you what I think the universe looked like when and what was alive then, or even if they evolved or not.
If the universe and life began how they did that is tremendously important it colors how everything is defined, was it intentionally done by a mind or without one?
Looking for best possible answer is done every time we attempt to understand an event, singular or ongoing. You can not duplicate some events but the causes we need to grasp.
@kellyjay saida.k.a. speculation
Looking for best possible answer is done every time we attempt to understand an event, singular or ongoing.
And, lest we forget, you place one "best possible answer", according to you, upon another "best possible answer", according to you, over and over again, until you have [1] everlasting life as a consequence of your religious beliefs and [2] eternal torture as a consequence of a lack of [or rejection of] your religious beliefs. Thank you for "looking for best possible answer" and trying to "understand an event".
@kellyjay saidMaybe there's a creator entity. But nobody actually knows. What do you need next in your thought exercise? Do we need to anthropomorphize that possible creator entity?
The only question I have been concerning myself with has been mindlessness or mind. It’s a binary choice I am not asking or telling you what I think the universe looked like when and what was alive then, or even if they evolved or not.
@kellyjay saidWhat I 'think is true' is that which can be ascertained by scientific method, such as carbon - dating to ascertain age, analysis of DNA and so on. If you have counter evidence to present then let us have it, although it is clear that evidence means nothing to you. I 'consider' talking snakes, a cornerstone of your believed mythology, to be a falsehood, since nobody has ever come across a snake that can talk.
You are quite free with setting up what you think is true to denounce what you consider false as if your facts are not disputable.
The only question I have been concerning myself with has been mindlessness or mind. It’s a binary choice I am not asking or telling you what I think the universe looked like when and what was alive then, or even if they evolved or not.
If ...[text shortened]... nd an event, singular or ongoing. You can not duplicate some events but the causes we need to grasp.
Your 'binary question' is exactly what we are discussing, and my post did not 'denounce' anything, it asked you a simple question, which in your time - honoured way you have avoided answering.
