Originally posted by The Force
but how did we get such a big brain? what made us different? we didn't have claws or sharp teeth or poison barbs for a defense, but if life is based on random chance, then how did OUR brain get so big?
We're just a highly evolved form of apes. In the grand scale of things, it's really not all that significant. Things like how multicellular organisms came about and how mitochondria came to live inside cells... Those are a lot more important, and more difficult than just evolving a bigger brain.
we didn't had a defence thingie, but in the end we didn't need to. We could see others approach when we were standing on two legs
it's cause THAT was our only defence that we clearly needed more, and with that, we used our brain to think how to defend ourselfs and by using it, we became smarter, and if you look at old skeletons, docs can work out that our brains now are bigger than at that time...
and the perfect proof, TF, to show that life is indeed based on random chance ... MY brain, as you are so kind to ask, is not big at all
OK well Im gonna skip back a page....
Omega> You said that there can be no such thing as an afterlife (Sorry if I misquoted you I just wanna say this)
I say how can there not be. If there was no such thing, morally, then there would be no reason not to loot, pillage, and be generally evil. But on a sientific perspective, Why not? How can there be an infanitesmile space, and why can't there be. Can you define Invinine? I dont think its possible. Science is the anti-infinite, so in an infine space why not a being that could control things, why not a life-after death. Why not magic, why not anything?
The Force> STILL no proof of Creationism? Now after more than a month am I to think you LIED when you said you could give me proof “when you got home”??
You now EITHER give me the proof(!) I’ve waited weeks and weeks to get AND answer the questions I’ve posed to you through the past almost 20 pages OR you admit that you CANNOT prove Creationism and it is merely something YOU believe!
The_One_Part_2> Humans developed keen memory – which furthered our intelligence- at a time of great climatic changes on Earth. At the time we lived in Africa, and needed to be able to remember where we stored water and food when travelling. Our intelligence arose when our ancestors picked up tools and differentiated themselves from the tools –“My hand” “Thing in hand is not my hand”-kinda thing.
Tptmanno1> (Sighs – I’m tired of being misquoted around here) I said, IF there is a life after death I’ll cross that bridge when I find it.
Windancer> We DO need a dialectic approach to history, if that is what you’re asking. But I’m not all for revisionism as it can and is being used to muddle modern debates (SUCH as people claiming the holocaust during WWII didn’t happen).
Of course science must be able to revise its ideas if something new shows up, but that is built INTO the scientific method. But simply questioning a deeply held principle based on the flimsiest of circumstantial evidence is not enough.
Historical revisionism about societies and cultures is an important part of our attempts to gain a BETTER understanding of history and how people lived their lives earlier on. The better we understand our past the better we understand how our modern societies arose.
Legitimate revisionism is fine.
And I use the word arrogant, because I view it as extremely arrogant (or un-educated or ignorant), that people with NO skill in biology claim evolution didn’t happen. They don’t even know what they’re talking about. Go back to one of the first pages in this debate. Look at The Forces list of things he claims disproves evolution. I replied and he vanished. He obviously had NO idea what he was posting and had just copied some things from “a” site.
I have already told you countless times, that I dismiss metaphysics because there is no evidence supporting it. Maybe I am wrong, maybe there IS evidence and I’m giving you the opportunity to show it to me.
The Ancient Greeks created the Scientific Method of thinking, yes. They had many good ideas, and many wrong ideas, too. I NEVER claimed Aristoteles said the Earth was flat, but other Greeks did, such as Anaximenes of Milet. They also claimed that all things consisted of the four elements, fire, earth, air and water. Not until the 18th century did the famous chemists Boyle and Lavoisier show us what matter was really made of.
What Aristoteles did do was placing the Earth in the centre of the Universe around the year 350 before our time. Was he right? No. Therefore Aristoteles was NOT always right.
For me to start questioning things there must be a reason.
And I agree that Social Darwinism has nothing to do with evolution. Claiming that Darwins theories (which deals with biology) can explain the evolution of society and justify social poverty and inequality is nonsense.
Originally posted by The Omega
And I use the word arrogant, because I view it as extremely arrogant (or un-educated or ignorant), that people with NO skill in biology claim evolution didn’t happen. They don’t even know what they’re talking about. Go back to one of the first pages in this debate. Look at The Forces list of things he claims disproves evolution. I replied and he vanished. He obviously had NO idea what he was posting and had just copied some things from “a” site.
To attempt to disprove evolution in its most basic definition is a futile effort. Obviously, all organisms develop and adapt throughout time. Anybody who believes that God just waved his hand and POOF, humans just appeared in their present form is a moron. It simply could not have happened that way. I don't know if we were monkeys first, but we definitely didn't start out this way.
Where do we go from here? What's are next stage of our evolution? Will the other creatures ever reach our level of intelligence?
TOP2> What’s really stupid is trying to disprove evolution as an attempt of proving Creationism.
We’re still evolving. So are other species. We just live for such a short moment in geological time that we don’t see evolution happening before our very eyes. I once read an article that if we, humans, continue to work the way we do
Yerssot> THAT, too.
But currently his excuse is, that we have to believe in God for him to be able to prove Creationism. It’s actually getting hilarious… this…
Why, btw, do I get the feeling that people, like Corlindel and DjmissPinkie, who make no contribution to this thread, would love it if someone COULD prove Creationism?
SK88728> Probably not. The dinosaurs had around 200 million years to evolve in. We've had less than 65. So if they hadn't evolved keen intelligence by the time they went extinct, it probably wasn't needed or helpful for their survival.
The Omega> Now this is a good start! We both agree that the evolution theory and Social Darwisnism isn't the same. Good! We are now in the same page here. But see that's were the mistake rises. Certain individuals confused both theories. Thats where mistakes happen. When you ask those that opposed Evolution you will notice that some of the arguements lead to Social Darwisnism thinking.
Here is an example of the confusion. Waaaay back in the early 20's the USA encounter one of the most bizzare and odd trials in the history of the Judicial system. It was the State of Tennesse vs. John Scopes. It is better known as the "monkey trial" Most of the arguements presented during the trial pointed that there were mistakes as far as the evolution system was being taught. Some of parents felt that Scopes was teaching a theory that was completely unethical. The parents felt that Evolution was bad! But the mistake was made by the parents because they thought that Evolution=Social Darwinsim. Scopes wasn't teaching Social Darwinism! it was Evolution.
Now people aren't "extremely arrogant" or "ignorant" (that is not fair to call people like that!) I rather used the word "uninform". These people are just not properly inform on evolution. People need to be inform that the two theories aren't the same.
We have discuss very little of the Metaphysical studies. There is far more to discuss about them. I won't go into that again with you (since you told me many times that YOU dismiss metaphysics) Let me just say that for me God can be found in the universe. Some how our thinking mind is capable to be connected with that divine being. How is it that we are connected? That is still debated today. Some of us have the feeling that God does communicated with us through our minds. One way to find God is using pure analytical thinking (Kant) Proofs of God existence always require some type of observational evidence. Evidences of God's existence are always found in philosophical thinking. Like Ontological, Cosmological and Teleological arguments. So for some strange reason God wants us to keep thinking of his/her existence 🙂
i dont go on KMC much and i missed alot. just wanted to say this is a really good thread. good perspectives.
thats true WD^
Kant is one of my fav Philosophers. Kant's most original contribution to philosophy is his "Copernican Revolution," that, as he puts it, it is the representation that makes the object possible rather than the object that makes the representation possible. Kant believes that, "Human reason is by its nature architectonic. I think Kant opposed the ideas of David Hume. they had opposite perspectives on Creationism, Antropology etc etc
Kant is awesome! Hard to understand sometimes. I like his "Critique of pure reason" (haven't read the book, but I like the philosophy within) I find it amazing how Kant distiguishes between two kinds of judgements, the "analytic" and the "synthetic". I don't know much about his Copernican Revolution priories. What interest me the most about Kant is his "structure of rational thought" also his "Categorical Imperative" ideas are so incredible. 🙂
Originally posted by The Omega
Why, btw, do I get the feeling that people, like Corlindel and DjmissPinkie, who make no contribution to this thread, would love it if someone COULD prove Creationism?
ooopps..I think you are making a wrong idea of me based only in your own faith. There are no evidences of my position in this thread to say what you said. You are not using a scientifical or empirical method to prove that Id like someone could prove creationism. You stop your own evolution and contradict yourself.
Just like a transcendent judgement about me that persists no mather if I can prove the opposite to your sensibility and understanding, in future...Just like religion/faith...I am starting to thing that OMEGA believes in Creationism.
😑 😛
p.s.
I am enjoying this thread a lot 🙂 No contribution I know. Just always learning while reading your opinions.
Hmm. Odd. Seems part of the answer to T1P2 vanished in the posting process. Anyways, the sentence should’ve been… “I once read an article that if we, humans, continue to work the way we do, and live the way we do, we may end up looking like grey aliens.”
Yerssot> Why not? 😄 Anselmus? Can’t say I have heard of him, no. What’s his ideas?
WindDancer> Well, as forumites we should all take a course in good debate-techniques. You know, make sure the premises are all set, that we agree on what we’re really discussing and what the actual problem is.
So: Evolution=Good. Social Darwinism=Crap. I didn’t even know there could be a confusion here, seeing as evolution deals with biology and Social Darwinism deals with… well… sociology and social studies.
You’re more than welcome to discuss metaphysics with me – All I ask is a reason to do so. I’m extremely sceptical when it comes to everything from astrology over religion to things that in general can not be proven but must be believed or accepted as fact. I'm educated and trained as a scientist and therefore use the scientific method in many areas of life – it’s turned out to be an excellent way of separate truth from lies, nonsense from facts, and crap from the truth. I’m not saying metaphysics is a lie, nonsense or crap. I just don’t see any proof of anything metaphysical.
I do not see any God (or goddess) in the Universe. Nor in the way (wo)man things or reasons. The idea of a divine being seems peculiar to me, for if such a being existed why does it allow children to have their arms and legs blasted off by old mines for example? I can only conclude one of the following. Either a) this divinity us unable to intervene, is therefore not omnipotent and should not be worshipped, or b) chooses not to intervene and is therefore heartless and evil and again not worthy of worship.
I prefer the utter freedom of atheism, morals based on observations of life and experience, and using the time I have to enjoy life without fear of something, which no one can prove exists. Usually, when people does that, it’s called a delusion.
Corlindel>” And then a lot of KMC members started to arguing in different languages, without understanding and tolerance, and what seemed to be the evolution of an useful thread, it killed it.”
” I am enjoying this thread a lot No contribution I know. Just always learning while reading your opinions.”
So, you like dead threads?