Interesting that this thread was created and its talking about Darwins theory because I have a friend who right now is in a community theatre production of INHERIT THE WIND and thats EXACTLY what the play talks about throughout the entire play is creation vs evolution and darwins theory.The play is based on the scopes trial where John Scopes a school teacher went on trial for teaching darwins theory in the south which was against the law at that time.the irony of this thread.amazing. 😱
Originally posted by Alliance
Thats not the point. The point is evolution is an observed process in nature. Its not something that someone proposes is there. Darwin's theory explains the mechanism FOR evolution (in fact, Darwin was in many ways wrong on the mechanism). Natural Selection is a Theory, evolution is not.Compare it to Newton's theories. Newton's Theory of Gravity did not one day, magically propose the concept of gravity. Gravity had been around for millinnea prior. Newton did not hypothesize its existence, he hypothesized a reduction of how gravity works.
Evolution was around for a long time before Darwin (it was referred to as transmutation). Darwin did not theorize evolution, he proposed a Theory OF evolution (that is works this way).
What is really happening in nature does not have a name, and cannot be defined or understood by humans. If you call that evolution, no one will understand what you are talking about. Once you put words to the true nature of reality, you conform it to an abstraction, and you no longer describe the true nature of reality.
I have always been talking about the theory of evolution.
I know that some people use the word "theory" as a way of bashing evolution, but they are childish and wrong. There is nothing wrong with something being a theory, it is simply an admittance that we do not know for sure.
Originally posted by ShakyamunisonI disagree that humans can not “understand” what happens in nature, we may not “fully” understand all the details and explain everything as of yet but that is not beyond human understanding.
What is really happening in nature does not have a name, and cannot be defined or understood by humans. If you call that evolution, no one will understand what you are talking about. Once you put words to the true nature of reality, you conform it to an abstraction, and you no longer describe the true nature of reality.I have always been talking about the theory of evolution.
I know that some people use the word "theory" as a way of bashing evolution, but they are childish and wrong. There is nothing wrong with something being a theory, it is simply an admittance that we do not know for sure.
Originally posted by ThePittman
I disagree that humans can not “understand” what happens in nature, we may not “fully” understand all the details and explain everything as of yet but that is not beyond human understanding.
I did not say we cannot understand what happens in nature. I said we cannot understand the true nature of reality. The true nature of reality cannot be understood; we will forever discover new complexities.
Originally posted by ShakyamunisonWell then it comes down to what you consider “true nature of reality” is, I don’t see it as anything other than stuff we haven’t learned or discovered yet but some underlining meaning to reality I don’t see.
I did not say we cannot understand what happens in nature. I said we cannot understand the true nature of reality. The true nature of reality cannot be understood; we will forever discover new complexities.
Originally posted by ThePittman
Well then it comes down to what you consider “true nature of reality” is, I don’t see it as anything other than stuff we haven’t learned or discovered yet but some underlining meaning to reality I don’t see.
The only difference between how we see the “true nature of reality” is I believe that it is fractal like, and you believe that it is finite. Is that correct?
Originally posted by ShakyamunisonThe way that I look at it is that the universe and everything in it is infinite and unending from creation of new things, parallel universes and so on but the explanation and how the came to be is explainable and can be either calculated or predictive.
The only difference between how we see the “true nature of reality” is I believe that it is fractal like, and you believe that it is finite. Is that correct?
Example is numbers, they are infinite and do not have a beginning or end but any number can be calculated and come up with a result. If you change a number it can also be calculated, we understand how it works and why it works so there is nothing that is not understood and even though there are a myriad of number and different possible combinations they all can be calculated.
Originally posted by ThePittman
The way that I look at it is that the universe and everything in it is infinite and unending from creation of new things, parallel universes and so on but the explanation and how the came to be is explainable and can be either calculated or predictive.Example is numbers, they are infinite and do not have a beginning or end but any number can be calculated and come up with a result. If you change a number it can also be calculated, we understand how it works and why it works so there is nothing that is not understood and even though there are a myriad of number and different possible combinations they all can be calculated.
Your example of math is not a good one. There are equations that we cannot solve, and we don't know if we ever can solve them. So, there are parts of math that we do not understand and may never understand.
Originally posted by Alliance
Thats not the point. The point is evolution is an observed process in nature. Its not something that someone proposes is there. Darwin's theory explains the mechanism FOR evolution (in fact, Darwin was in many ways wrong on the mechanism). Natural Selection is a Theory, evolution is not.Compare it to Newton's theories. Newton's Theory of Gravity did not one day, magically propose the concept of gravity. Gravity had been around for millinnea prior. Newton did not hypothesize its existence, he hypothesized a reduction of how gravity works.
Evolution was around for a long time before Darwin (it was referred to as transmutation). Darwin did not theorize evolution, he proposed a Theory OF evolution (that is works this way).
Exactly 👆
Evolution, like Gravity, is already proven through our most advanced means possible.
To deny the existance of Gravity and/or to deny the fact of Evolution is idiotic.
DNA similiarities and fossil examinations cannot lie or be "coincidense" when thousands of species being examined yield the same results: that one creature evolved from one prior to itself.
Originally posted by ShakyamunisonWell I’m not talking about math in general and some equations that haven’t been solved doesn’t mean that the equation is right in the first place or that all the variables have been discovered. If you have all of the variables for an equation the answer can be calculated.
Your example of math is not a good one. There are equations that we cannot solve, and we don't know if we ever can solve them. So, there are parts of math that we do not understand and may never understand.
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
[b]Exactly 👆Evolution, like Gravity, is already proven through our most advanced means possible.
To deny the existance of Gravity and/or to deny the fact of Evolution is idiotic.
DNA similiarities and fossil examinations cannot lie or be "coincidense" when thousands of species being examined yield the same results: that one creature evolved from one prior to itself. [/B]
The Ether was thought to exist for many years and was considered to be fact, until Einstein came along and changed the way we look at the speed of light. Tomorrow someone could come along and change the way we think about evolution.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
The Ether was thought to exist for many years and was considered to be fact, until Einstein came along and changed the way we look at the speed of light. Tomorrow someone could come along and change the way we think about evolution.
The Aether had absolutely no proof what-so-ever to back it up. It was simply a myth that made sense, because it was too difficult to imagine that "nothing" or empty space could exist between the worlds.
Also, back then, because of Christian myth, it was beleived that Heaven was above the sky. It was blasphemy to think that "Heaven" could be filled with empty space.
This was accepted, and considered fact, due to religious and social dogma, not by any plausible means. There was absolutely no evidense to back any of this up.
Evolution has concrete evidense, DNA similiarities (not just similiarities, but actual steps from past to present), fossil examinations, carbon dating, and the like to back it up.
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
The Aether had absolutely no proof what-so-ever to back it up. It was simply a myth that made sense, because it was too difficult to imagine that "nothing" or empty space could exist between the worlds.Also, back then, because of Christian myth, it was beleived that Heaven was above the sky. It was blasphemy to think that "Heaven" could be filled with empty space.
This was accepted, and considered fact, due to religious and social dogma, not by any plausible means. There was absolutely no evidense to back any of this up.
Evolution has concrete evidense, DNA similiarities (not just similiarities, but actual steps from past to present), fossil examinations, carbon dating, and the like to back it up.
All I am saying is that we really don't understand what is going on. Evolution is really close to what is going on, but some genius could come along tomorrow and show us how our biases have blinded us to what is really going on.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
All I am saying is that we really don't understand what is going on. Evolution is really close to what is going on, but some genius could come along tomorrow and show us how our biases have blinded us to what is really going on.
That is true
Someone could also one day show me that the entire world isn't real. That we are all part of a Matrix system meant to supply our Android superiors with energy like batteries. 😛
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I know that some people use the word "theory" as a way of bashing evolution, but they are childish and wrong. There is nothing wrong with something being a theory, it is simply an admittance that we do not know for sure.
This is incorrect. A theory is the highest principle in biological science. Natural Selection would be a Law, but there is no nice little F=ma type equation to describe it.
However, the fact that Natural selection is a theory and not a hypothesis signifies that it is indeed fact. We DO know for sure given the evidence available at the time.
Its as if you are looking at a car but one door of the car is covered. If the car is painted silver, its perfectly appropriate to assume that the rest of the car (the one door we can't see) is silver, even though you are incapable of seeing it at the time. It may be the case they you are wrong, but only a fool would come up and say "that car is NOT silver" (which is essentially what you are proposing). Everyone sees it, it is fact.
Science has (ahem...proclaims) no problem changing its mind with new evidence, however, the theory describes all observable evidence (it may fail in remote areas, thats why its constantly being changed).
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
What is really happening in nature does not have a name, and cannot be defined or understood by humans. If you call that evolution, no one will understand what you are talking about. Once you put words to the true nature of reality, you conform it to an abstraction, and you no longer describe the true nature of reality.
Thats a philosophy, one not more credible than reductionism. I already addressed this point.
Originally posted by Alliance
As a rational human being, I generally don't care for absolute truth. Nothing can be absolutely proven, but things have been proven factual enough to work with. If you don't accept any truths, you can't get any work done. I'll be productive and keep my small margin of error.
I guarantee you that, you, personally in your everyday life, make an endless series of "abstractions" of nature and use them to be productive. Every aspect of modern life is based on them. Its rather hypocritical to be speaking out against them.
If humans can't attain truth, you should really stop looking for it.
Originally posted by Alliance
...I guarantee you that, you, personally in your everyday life, make an endless series of "abstractions" of nature and use them to be productive. Every aspect of modern life is based on them. Its rather hypocritical to be speaking out against them.If humans can't attain truth, you should really stop looking for it.
What, I'm confused now. I thought I was the one in support of abstractions. 😕
Only when you stop looking for it, do you find it. But you cannot tell any one what it is because that would require looking at it.