The Theory of Evolution

[Guest TRAGEDY]

Good post

Lol @ batty germs

[Guest TRAGEDY]

Some sh*t engineer

Hahaha

[Mizchif]

Hold on did man say as an engineer he knows that science can be bullshit?

 

Pardon my ignorance but I can't imagine a situation in your life where you would have experienced something beyond a logical explainable occurrence. I've never for example, plugged my phone into a wall and then a unicorns appeared. Sorry to get judgmental but there have been some rather weak, illogical anti evolution arguments here so far. 

[Fighting Weight]

LOL @ Fighting Weight, putting 100% faith in science. As an engineer, I know science can be bullshit. 

 

I am not religious, but the thing that got me with both groups (scientist & religious) why don't they ever thing that both are intertwined? That's what I thought when I used to believe in religion.

 

Science itself, can't be be bullshit, as Science does not cheer for a particular result or theory, it simply discards the ones that are incompatible with reality. A scientist can be wrong, yes, but that's an entirely different process. 

 

Have you experienced something during your engineering course that could not be explained by logic and/or science? a levitating spanner perhaps? It's doubtful

 

 

I am not religious, but the thing that got me with both groups (scientist & religious) why don't they ever thing that both are intertwined? That's what I thought when I used to believe in religion.

 

Interwined to what degree?

 

There are certainly a few things cannot be directly measured or quantified, certain experiences or emotions.

 

However, what religion is supposed to intertwine with Scientific observation, which of the many do you suggest?

 

Ancient Greek Olympianism?

Romanistic Paganism?

Zoroastrianism?

Hinduism?

Islam?

Christianity?

Judaism?

Buddism?

Druze?

Rastafarianism?

Jainism?

 

And within each of these there are many many divisions and sects

 

Religious faith & religions can be so rarely intertwined with Science because most religious practices, are to one degree or another, unscientific, and don't rely on rationale and logic, but on faith/emotion. Nobody discovered in the 3rd century that 'Zeus was merely a myth, and the Christian God is proven' - they hold the exact same level of veracity as eachother, and as every other religion that springs up will.

 

Religious faiths can be so rarely intertwined with EACHOTHER, let alone with the actual practice of observing reality. You can get scientists from all over the world to agree on Scientific facts, but you cannot get religious people all over the world to agree on religious beliefs, who's religion should we take into account when looking to intertwine things? Should we pander to everyones individual beliefs when seeking to determine the method in which to try and progress humanity?

 

At the end of the day, to my knowledge (and please correct me if I am wrong) it has only ever been the scientific method that has found fault in OTHER previous scientific (or otherwise) beliefs. And that will continue to be the case

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wi0KWL8Ikqw

[Badman]

Comeon guys

 

you clearly know there are certain things in the universe which science cannot explain stop being so narrow minded 

 

According to current theories, black holes shouldn't exist.

 

Fact is scientific theories is full of contradiction and uncertainty, of course we can ignore this because science is mostly true 95% of the time so we can just overlook it

 

If science doesnt eventually destroy us I am certain that one day humanity will look back to this age and think wtf humans were so stupid, just like we look back at medieval times and think the same and if I was to hazard a guess people would have been pretty sure of themselves back then as well.

 

Science is a myth

[Mizchif]

Comeon guys

 

you clearly know there are certain things in the universe which science cannot explain stop being so narrow minded 

 

According to current theories, black holes shouldn't exist.

 

Fact is scientific theories is full of contradiction and uncertainty, of course we can ignore this because science is mostly true 95% of the time so we can just overlook it

 

If science doesnt eventually destroy us I am certain that one day humanity will look back to this age and think wtf humans were so stupid, just like we look back at medieval times and think the same and if I was to hazard a guess people would have been pretty sure of themselves back then as well.

 

Science is a myth

 

Cannot explain yet. Science doesn't claim to have all of the answers to everything, in fact Science is the search for those answers where as Religion is the opposite.

 

According to current theories Black holes absolutely should exist, they're one of the most numerous things in the known universe, the question is what happens to the matter that it absorbs, what is at the centre of the singularity, black holes are one of the vital components to life as we know it. And to answer this would be to explain what happened at the beginning of the known universe and before that. The reason science doesn't have the answers is that we don't have the capabilities to apply the scientific method to prove or properly study it, but for that very same reason we built our periodic table with spaces for things that we haven't yet discovered and have only theorized about using logic.

[Fighting Weight]

you clearly know there are certain things in the universe which science cannot explain stop being so narrow minded 

 

Considering I said

 

 

There are certainly a few things cannot be directly measured or quantified, certain experiences or emotions.

 

I wouldn't say I'm being narrow minded, Science itself is also not a narrow-minded pursuit, it's the opposite, it's free enquiry and investigation, it's the OPPOSITE of narrow-mindedness. Narrow-mindedness is dogma, repetition, unchanging point of views - not a single one of these things is inherent or encouraged by science and the scientific method, science is the art of investigation pure and simple.

 

 

According to current theories, black holes shouldn't exist.

 

This isn't true.

 

 

Fact is scientific theories is full of contradiction and uncertainty, of course we can ignore this because science is mostly true 95% of the time so we can just overlook it

 

This is again 100% untrue and an absolute blanket statement, and not even true within your own statement - you can't say theories are full of contradiction and uncertainty, and then go on to say science is mostly true 95% of the time - please list the theories that are full of contradiction and uncertainty. There are definitely things we don't know about, and most things we do know about we only know a little about, but the scientific method is still the best way of finding out, and has never been shown up to be anything other than that.

 

 

If science doesnt eventually destroy us 

 

Science is a method of investigation and experimentation - it does not have an agenda or beliefs, it by definition cannot destroy anyone or anything. I am unsure what the constant confusion is with Science, and Religion, two completely opposing entities.

 

 

one day humanity will look back to this age and think wtf humans were so stupid, just like we look back at medieval times and think the same and if I was to hazard a guess people would have been pretty sure of themselves back then as well.

 

We look back at the medieval times and think they were so stupid, BECAUSE they were superstitious and thought that

 

-You could burn girls as young as 5 at the stake for imaginary crimes such as witchcraft

-Diseases were brought about by the displeasure of God, if a people got sick, it was because they had sinned

-Natural disasters were punishments from God

-Physical resurrection of dead bodies was possible

-Spells and pagan rituals were effective cures for illnesses and ailments

-Sacrificing of animals (and sometimes people) would bring good fortune

-Black dogs, cats, and other animals were cursed

 

We 'laugh' at them because their beliefs were based on superstitious nonsense and allowed to foster through ignorance and fear, this was NOT modern science

 

 

Science is a myth

 

No. The myths are religious in origin, I'll give you some

 

Universal floods

walking on water

adam and eve

flying horses

living inside a fishes belly for 3 days

minotaurs, centaurs

dragons

giants

angels

 

These things are myths, and many of them believed to this day by a large number of people

[8BALL]

Some absolutely bone thick people on this forum

Man said science is a myth

lmao

[Fearless-Guy]

cipher any thoughts on my last post

[Badman]

Some absolutely bone thick people on this forum

Man said science is a myth

lmao

 

Dont be a d*ck

 

at least I am trying to give an insight, might be outlandish and not what everyone agrees on but its a contribution none the less

[Fighting Weight]

Hang on, I think we are arguing slightly different things. I am not saying that the prevalence of these phenomena (love, belief in god, language, art) negate the theory of evolution. As I said in my first post, I believe in evolution and intellectual design (creator,divine intervention, - whatever you wanna call it).  Saying evolution does not need to delve into human characteristics tho seems wildly contradictory

I think the emergence of these bevaiours, can't be explained by science, as they have nothing to do with survival or natural selection.

If you are talking about the cases of Washoe and Koko etc, these were animals that were taught rudimentary sign language under captivity. If you were to look at these apes in the wild their communication would be quite primitive and not creative - mainly for survival. I share the opinion of Noam Chomsky that language is a skill unique to humans

You say human creativity has come about through natural evolution of the brain, but is there any evidence which explains why this might have taken place, or when, or in particular which species of homosapiens this developed through?

 

Evolution in itself is not goal-orientated, it's a non-linear process, the end (indeed our evolution isn't at an end) aim would not have been for us to develop creativity, or culture, these things (lets just call it creativity) come from the same neurological systems that allow advanced toolmaking, high level cognition, optical perception, advanced hunting and sheltering methods, this creativity in light of the former examples, has an obvious evolutionary advantage

 

The first instances of human Art & Creativity itself have been traced to approx 155-200 thousand years after the current homo-sapien brain reached it's most recent morphological & anatomical state - this means that for almost 2 centuries, human existence continued and persevered without a recognised (or demonstrable) artistic creative influence

 

This influence can be largely placed within the boundaries of cultural adaptation & influence, humans themselves are not born with the creativity we see common to many of us today, for example nobody here I imagine would know how to make a piece of paper that we used to write, or manufacture a pencil, or plant a tree, or paint on walls or construct many of the things we see as basic, or complete many of the tasks we see as natural, but instead our artistic & creative knowledge is based on a COLLECTIVE influence through interaction with other humans

 

Things such as wall paintings were not natural instincts to prehistoric humans, they came about through the gradual discovery of a combination of tools, inks, pastes, things that would have come naturally from the survival-based instances of hunting, eating and mating, once these things were discovered, the collective knowledge of the clan or people would have passed the knowledge down and it would be improved on, upgraded, investigated in whatever way the early peoples knew how

 

I'm not sure If I've answered your question all too well, or been clear, but the basis of my answer is

 

1. Human knowledge and culture are collective enterprises, not individual, our higher brain function allows us to harness these aspects of our nature once we had acheived them, the human capacity to learn is what sets us apart in this regard

 

2. A child born from the middle Palaeolithic era, and a child born now, for all intents and purposes neurologically and physiologically, are identical, and if they were traded places again, for all intents and purposes, would be 'up to speed' so to speak, with the relative cultures and technologies of their age, a child born in 2013, if magically transported back 200,00 years ago and integrated into the ways and systems of that age and people, would not possess any higher degree of knowledge or brain power than the children of that time, and similarly if a child of the prehistoric era was kidnapped and adopted by a 2013 family, they would be able to use an Ipad by the age of 3

 

This is down to the cumulative way in which human endeavours are understood and passed down, not due to the individual brilliance of the specific individual, it is ENTIRELY possible that if some near-apocolypitic event occured, humanity could completely regress if certain knowledge was lost, living in caves and pure-hunter gatherer lifestyles could be a the order of the day again under certain circumstances

 

There are a few good articles on the evolution of the brain

 

http://www.columbia.edu/~rlh2/EvolHumBrain1996.pdf

 

Paleolithic art (and the superstitious / religious / evolutionary incentives) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleolithic_burial

 

I hope my answers were on the right track to understanding your queston

[Guest TRAGEDY]

Some absolutely bone thick people on this forum

Man said science is a myth

lmao

Lol

[Elementalism]

LOL @ Fighting Weight, putting 100% faith in science. As an engineer, I know science can be bullshit. 

 

I am not religious, but the thing that got me with both groups (scientist & religious) why don't they ever thing that both are intertwined? That's what I thought when I used to believe in religion.

 

Exactly.

 

I accept both.

[Fighting Weight]

LOL @ Fighting Weight, putting 100% faith in science. As an engineer, I know science can be bullshit. 

 

I am not religious, but the thing that got me with both groups (scientist & religious) why don't they ever thing that both are intertwined? That's what I thought when I used to believe in religion.

 

Exactly.

 

I accept both.

 

Exactly What?!

 

You accept what?

 

And why has religion been brought up, again

[gattsu]

LOL @ Fighting Weight, putting 100% faith in science. As an engineer, I know science can be bullshit. 

Lmao,What dose that even mean?

[dub]

waste of breath tryna argue evolution with Christians tbh

[Badman]

 

LOL @ Fighting Weight, putting 100% faith in science. As an engineer, I know science can be bullshit. 

 

I am not religious, but the thing that got me with both groups (scientist & religious) why don't they ever thing that both are intertwined? That's what I thought when I used to believe in religion.

 

Exactly.

 

I accept both.

 

Exactly What?!

 

You accept what?

 

And why has religion been brought up, again

 

whats your beef with religion bro?

 

Atheist? 

[Fighting Weight]

 

 

LOL @ Fighting Weight, putting 100% faith in science. As an engineer, I know science can be bullshit. 

 

I am not religious, but the thing that got me with both groups (scientist & religious) why don't they ever thing that both are intertwined? That's what I thought when I used to believe in religion.

 

Exactly.

 

I accept both.

 

Exactly What?!

 

You accept what?

 

And why has religion been brought up, again

 

whats your beef with religion bro?

 

Atheist? 

 

I don't have one, but as soon as this topic gets turned into 

 

Science vs Religion, or Science vs God

 

The purpose of it goes completely out of the window, similar to when race gets brought into a topic, it just becomes useless

 

Evolution itself is something that can be discussed perfectly without really going into the religious aspect of things

 

However, I have been toying with creating a theology / bible study thread, with an attempt to discuss the origins of the various texts from a historical and archeological standpoint....but, that could just be a big can o worms

[Kuffir]

i dnt buy it

 

thinking and all the shit that comes with it 

 

too much of a leap

 

the brain is a powerful thing but from a ape to a man nah it didn't think/evolve its way here or come in contact with some magic substance that put it there

 

religion n science shud rele learn to get a long theyd be stronger as a team

[dom dom bullets]

Science doesn't need religion

[Kuffir]

and religion doesnt need science

 

and the saga continues..

[dub]

religion n science shud rele learn to get a long theyd be stronger as a team

 

its a war that religion started with science, im sure if religion embraced science long ago then less people would have been inclined to move towards atheism

[Heero Yuy]

and religion doesnt need science

 

and the saga continues..

 

But it really does though

[dub]

why?

[Kuffir]

and religion doesnt need science

 

and the saga continues..

 

But it really does though

 

religion is faith 

 

what is faith

 

so what r u 2 tlkin about

 

neither needs the other which is why its such a pointless statement