Common Descent

[watsup]

And in a normal looking post without the childish rants in a huge red font. What the purpose of that is defeats me. Tosca's erroneous words are Tosca's words no matter how big they are. Making them bigger does not change their meaning.

Yes, that’s part of why I called it a mishmash. It’s just all over the place. She seems to think that LARGE FONT is a good substitute for serious discussion with one vital thought following another. All that LARGE FONT does is show the lack of seriousness of the POSTER.

 

[Cordelier]

It’s apologism. It’s coming up with the “belief” first and then tryIng to back in “reasons” to support it. It means nothing in the end. Science answers questions about nature. It’s a free country, so anyone can “believe” absolutely anything that they want, but that doesn’t mean that we have to buy into their myths and superstitions.

I disagree... I think there's something fundamental to our existence as sentient beings that draws us toward spirituality. I think our whole concept of what constitutes a modern civilization - it's blind dedication to science, technological advancement for the sake of technological advancement, consumerism & materialism - all of it is essentially just a veneer. Scratch beneath the surface, and the whole of it can fall away in an instant. What truly matters is what lies hidden beneath that shiny surface - it's the nature of our spirituality which makes us what we are. It's a common bond that exists in one shape or another in every human society - no matter how primitive or isolated they are.... at our core, at one point or another, we all feel compelled to worship an entity (or entities) greater than ourselves. I think that says something significant about human nature that shouldn't be ignored.

We can have the same debate about spirituality that we have about mathematics..... is it something that we have created or is it something that we have discovered? I don't believe there is a definitive answer either way. Maybe there is no difference between a universe where math was created by man to one where it was discovered by man? And there being no difference, there can be no way to tell the difference. I suspect much the same about human spirituality as well. In the end, it's like Schrödinger's cat - only way to tell if it's alive or dead is to look into the box. Only we don't get to do that. So it's both.

 

[Cordelier]

Excellent position. Even though I am an atheist, I roll my eyes when people hold religion in the same regard as "invisible pink unicorns" and call scripture "fairy tales". It's simply unserious and displays a clear, non-constructive agenda.

Exactly... I'm not suggesting any particular belief system is superior to another, but I think they all have something to offer. Like the blind men touching the Elephant and each coming away with a different and erroneous picture of what the big picture actually is. Perhaps the wisest of all is the blind man who doesn't touch the Elephant at all... but keeps an open mind to what the others tell him?

 

[zyzygy]

I disagree... I think there's something fundamental to our existence as sentient beings that draws us toward spirituality. I think our whole concept of what constitutes a modern civilization - it's blind dedication to science, technological advancement for the sake of technological advancement, consumerism & materialism - all of it is essentially just a veneer. Scratch beneath the surface, and the whole of it can fall away in an instant. What truly matters is what lies hidden beneath that shiny surface - it's the nature of our spirituality which makes us what we are. It's a common bond that exists in one shape or another in every human society - no matter how primitive or isolated they are.... at our core, at one point or another, we all feel compelled to worship an entity (or entities) greater than ourselves. I think that says something significant about human nature that shouldn't be ignored.

We can have the same debate about spirituality that we have about mathematics..... is it something that we have created or is it something that we have discovered? I don't believe there is a definitive answer either way. Maybe there is no difference between a universe where math was created by man to one where it was discovered by man? And there being no difference, there can be no way to tell the difference. I suspect much the same about human spirituality as well. In the end, it's like Schrödinger's cat - only way to tell if it's alive or dead is to look into the box. Only we don't get to do that. So it's both.

It is something we created. You believe that it exists.

 

[zyzygy]

Exactly... I'm not suggesting any particular belief system is superior to another, but I think they all have something to offer. Like the blind men touching the Elephant and each coming away with a different and erroneous picture of what the big picture actually is. Perhaps the wisest of all is the blind man who doesn't touch the Elephant at all... but keeps an open mind to what the others tell him?

The blind man would do what any blind man would do and ask to feel the whole elephant.

 

[Cordelier]

I prefer Buddhist texts. You know nothing about me.

Good! It doesn't make any difference whether you prefer Christian texts or Buddhist texts or the Ancient Egyptian Book of the Dead.... they all have their own insights and wisdom. No one religion has a monopoly on truth, but if you try and read and absorb as much as you can, you can start to gain broader insights.

 

[Cordelier]

Can someone point me to the grain of truth in Genesis?

Nothing I say will have any meaning to you, Zyz. I'll take something as a pearl of wisdom and put great value in the lesson and show it to you and you'll just scoff and say there's no value in it at all. It's what you do. Maybe that's human nature? But if you truly want to see wisdom, you have to go out and search for it yourself. When you find it, only then will it have meaning for you.

 

[SheWolf]

I fear that you are wasting your time.

Tosca is not an honest debater, and does not appear to accept science

 

[SheWolf]

Ancestor of All Living Things More Sophisticated than Thought | Live Science


:roll:


See? What did I tell ya? :mrgreen:


S P E C U L A T I O N S!

I think it’s obvious that you don’t understand basic science

 

[Cordelier]

The most popular scientific explanation of the universe is that it has developed over billions of years. This is called the big bang model. But the first chapter of the Bible says that the universe was created in six days! In order to resolve this difference some say that Genesis 1 is mythical. A mytho-historical genre (literature style) is one where a grain of truth (the historical part) is embellished to convey some spiritual truth (the mythical part). In this case it’s assumed that the text is not to be read as literal history. It conveys a sense of truth about origins, but not a literal description of actual events. For example, the days of creation may represent long geological periods in deep time. And the biblical creation week is taken to be a figurative expression for gradual changes which occurred on the earth, perhaps millions or billions of years ago. But who decides what part is historical and what part is myth? And who decides what the myth means? This is a very subjective method of interpreting the Bible.

When I looked at “Genesis 1-11: Fact or fiction”, I found that:
“The Bible was written to be understood by ordinary people, so it shouldn’t be difficult to interpret. We have seen that Genesis 1-11 is not figurative language, poetry, parables, a historical novel or a myth. But it is a biography and an autobiography that describes real historical people and real historical events. It is prose narrative, with some embedded pieces that are poetic (Gen. 1:27; 2:23; 4:23-24) and some genealogical records (Gen 5, 10, 11:10–26). And it differs from other near eastern cosmologies because they are poetic and polytheistic. The writers of the Bible affirm that Genesis 1-11 is fact not fiction. It is an account of real events. Jesus affirmed it as well. And the gospel is based on the historicity of the early chapters of Genesis. So, Genesis 1-11 isn’t a type of doublespeak where words don’t have their usual meaning.”

Genesis 1: Fact or fiction? | George's Journal

Why do people keep getting hung up on this whole 6 days thing? I'm not even sure what use God would have for time anyway.... and it's not like when Genesis was written all those millennia ago that people would have any concept of what a billion was. Was the concept of a "billion" part of anyone's vocabulary back then? I can't see why it would be.

Anyway... in Psalm 90:4 and 2 Peter 3:8, the Bible specifically says that to God, a day is a thousand years. So if it can be a thousand years, why not a million? Why not a billion? Why not any number? If God is taken as infinite, then would not time itself be a meaningless concept to Him? Personally, I figure we're still in the 7th Day... and from God's rest arises our free will.

 

[tosca1]

Originally Posted by tosca1 View Post

"One potential criticism is that archaea and bacteria might not have inherited this organelle from the last universal common ancestor.


One possibility regarding the last universal common ancestor that remains was that it was not a single-celled organism, Whitfield added. Rather, it might have been more of a colony of tiny subcellular entities. "We have no way of telling," he said.

The researchers now plan to investigate the evolutionary history of other proteins linked with this organelle to get a picture of what the last universal common ancestor might have been like."

Ancestor of All Living Things More Sophisticated than Thought | Live Science





See? What did I tell ya?


S P E C U L A T I O N S!

I think it’s obvious that you don’t understand basic science

:roll:

You know folks - posturing will eventually reveal itself. Easy to spot "posturers."




....and, you do? You understand "basic science?" I say, no way!
Lol.....if you don't get why I said "SPECULATION" - there's no way you can understand basic science! :lamo




Is that all you have to say? No explanation as to why? :lol:


Put your money where your mouth is:

Explain what was wrong with what I said?



I'll be surprised if we hear from you again.

 

[tosca1]

tosca1


You better try to understand what is being said, Watsup. I never gave an argument based on the Bible/faith alone.


Theistic Evolution is not based on faith alone! Lol. You said it yourself:


If you understood what the NAS described it to be, you'd also know that theistic evolution is also science-based.


You keep harping about "belief!"
You seem to think that "belief" is exclusively religious-based. It's not!


Here's another definition of belief:

something that is accepted, considered to be true, or held as an opinion : something believed - merriam/webster


You believe in the existence of LUCA! That's an example of a belief.

You post a lot of words, but it’s Just a mishmash of different topics rather than a focus on the important issues.
Anyway, you really don’t seem to know what you are talking about regarding theistic evolution. At one point, you were even saying that THEISTIC evolution did not involve God. "???????????

Anyway, I asked you somewhere back there to explain in more detail what theistic evolution means. If you can’t, then why should we continue a conversation where you use terms without understanding them.
So I’ll ask you again: Explain to me your understanding of theistic evolution in more detail than just quoting NAS, which does not provide any detail besides simply listing it.
Quite frankly, I just don’t think that you have an in-depth understanding of what it actually is.
Please don’t dance around this like you usually do. Give me a direct answer to my question.

Hahahahaha Of course it takes so many words to expand and explain things to you! :mrgreen:
You're having a very hard time getting what is being said. Consider yourself fortunate that I'm being quite patient here.


How much more direct would you want it to be? You keep going on and on with this "belief!"
You hang on to it for dear life - and yet, you don't realize that it's not your life-saver! :lol:


I gave you the definition of belief!


something that is accepted, considered to be true, or held as an opinion : something believed - merriam/webster



Now you're informed.....I hope. :lol: You're wrong in thinking that it pertains only to religion! :lol:
That's at the crux of your issue - you say theistic evolution is a belief, and that therefore it has no place in science!

Well, tell that to the National Academy of Sciences! Lecture them about belief! :lamo

 

[Hari Seldon]

I fear that you are wasting your time.

I agree. Be very interesting if ever encountered extraterrestrial life. Explain that!

 

[tosca1]

I agree. Be very interesting if ever encountered extraterrestrial life. Explain that!

What about extraterrestrial life if we encounter it?
What's to explain?

 

[Cordelier]

I agree. Be very interesting if ever encountered extraterrestrial life. Explain that!

*LOL* That's probably the understatement of the millennia.

But what if we encountered a signal from another sentient civilization? Do you think belief in spirituality is a feature unique to homo sapiens? Or is it more likely a feature common to all sentient races?

 

[watsup]

:roll:

You know folks - posturing will eventually reveal itself. Easy to spot "posturers."




....and, you do? You understand "basic science?" I say, no way!
Lol.....if you don't get why I said "SPECULATION" - there's no way you can understand basic science! :lamo




Is that all you have to say? No explanation as to why? :lol:


Put your money where your mouth is:

Explain what was wrong with what I said?



I'll be surprised if we hear from you again.

See post #129. I don’t have the patience to give the explanation every single time. I’m sorry that you can’t understand it and what science really is.

 

[watsup]

Hahahahaha Of course it takes so many words to expand and explain things to you! :mrgreen:
You're having a very hard time getting what is being said. Consider yourself fortunate that I'm being quite patient here.


How much more direct would you want it to be? You keep going on and on with this "belief!"
You hang on to it for dear life - and yet, you don't realize that it's not your life-saver! :lol:


I gave you the definition of belief!


something that is accepted, considered to be true, or held as an opinion : something believed - merriam/webster



Now you're informed.....I hope. :lol: You're wrong in thinking that it pertains only to religion! :lol:
That's at the crux of your issue - you say theistic evolution is a belief, and that therefore it has no place in science!

Well, tell that to the National Academy of Sciences! Lecture them about belief! :lamo

See post #143. Again, I have addressed all of this before.
And I see that you still won’t commit to saying what you understanding of theistic evolution is. What are you so afraid of?

 

[Cordelier]

It is something we created. You believe that it exists.

Absolutely mathematics exists. There is no largest prime number... that's a truth as true today as it was when our ancestors lived in caves. We didn't need to develop mathematics for that to be true, did we?

 

[Cordelier]

The blind man would do what any blind man would do and ask to feel the whole elephant.

Even so, much of it will still lie beyond reach, will it not?

 

[ataraxia]

*LOL* That's probably the understatement of the millennia.

But what if we encountered a signal from another sentient civilization? Do you think belief in spirituality is a feature unique to homo sapiens? Or is it more likely a feature common to all sentient races?

I think it could go either way. I think this idea of spirituality- in the sense of being "otherworldly"- is not even universal among homo sapiens. In many cultures around the world, and even in the same culture through historical time, that has been a very foreign concept. These theoretical aliens may have issues, hangups, and cultural quirks entirely different from ours- things which we can't even imagine yet. And they may be just as curious to ask us if we have had such ideas, at which point we may just be giving them a blank stare, the same way we may get a blank stare from them on the concept of otherworldly spirituality.

 

[ataraxia]

Absolutely mathematics exists. There is no largest prime number... that's a truth as true today as it was when our ancestors lived in caves. We didn't need to develop mathematics for that to be true, did we?

The failure of Bertrand Russell and Alfred North Whitehead, as pointed out by Godel in his incompleteness theorem, has shown that mathematics does not, and cannot, exist, even conceptually, outside of the assumptions that underly its foundations. But those assumptions can always, in turn, be questioned or changed. It is a very powerful tool of logic. But like any tool of logic, the maxim "garbage in, garbage out" still holds. It, by itself as a logical system, does not point to any ultimate truths about the ultimate reality of the universe.

 

[Cordelier]

I think it could go either way. I think this idea of spirituality- in the sense of being "otherworldly"- is not even universal among homo sapiens. In many cultures around the world, and even in the same culture through historical time, that has been a very foreign concept. These theoretical aliens may have issues, hangups, and cultural quirks entirely different from ours- things which we can't even imagine yet. And they may be just as curious to ask us if we have had such ideas, at which point we may just be giving them a blank stare, the same way we may get a blank stare from them on the concept of otherworldly spirituality.

Really? What human cultures have had no concept of spirituality? I'm not aware of a single one.

I think the need for one's grasp to exceed their reach is a characteristic of sentience. Of course, as you could rightly suggest, I come to this conclusion on a sample size of 1.... but I can't think why a sentient race would bother to transmit signals out into the depths of space unless their grasp also exceeded their reach as well.

"Ah, but a man's reach should exceed his grasp,
Or what's a heaven for?"
--- Robert Browning, Andrea del Sarto

 

[watsup]

Hahahahaha Of course it takes so many words to expand and explain things to you! :mrgreen:
You're having a very hard time getting what is being said. Consider yourself fortunate that I'm being quite patient here.


How much more direct would you want it to be? You keep going on and on with this "belief!"
You hang on to it for dear life - and yet, you don't realize that it's not your life-saver! :lol:


I gave you the definition of belief!


something that is accepted, considered to be true, or held as an opinion : something believed - merriam/webster



Now you're informed.....I hope. :lol: You're wrong in thinking that it pertains only to religion! :lol:
That's at the crux of your issue - you say theistic evolution is a belief, and that therefore it has no place in science!

Well, tell that to the National Academy of Sciences! Lecture them about belief! :lamo

Again, you are misrepresenting science. Science always has EVIDENCE for its hypotheses. Science does not just say “we believe” without objective reality-based EVIDENCE to back it up. That is quite different from the God “believers” who readily admit that they do so based on “faith” and have yet to present any objective reality-based evidence to back it up.
The two couldn’t be more different.

 

[Hari Seldon]

*LOL* That's probably the understatement of the millennia.

But what if we encountered a signal from another sentient civilization? Do you think belief in spirituality is a feature unique to homo sapiens? Or is it more likely a feature common to all sentient races?

I read and watch way too much SF. I like the ideas in "Contact". Has the religious zealotry as well.

 

[Cordelier]

The failure of Bertrand Russell and Alfred North Whitehead, as pointed out by Godel in his incompleteness theorem, has shown that mathematics does not, and cannot, exist, even conceptually, outside of the assumptions that underly its foundations. But those assumptions can always, in turn, be questioned or changed. It is a very powerful tool of logic. But like any tool of logic, the maxim "garbage in, garbage out" still holds. It, by itself as a logical system, does not point to any ultimate truths about the ultimate reality of the universe.

Gödel's Incompleteness theorems lend creedence to the Platonist view that math is discovered.... they point to the futility of trying to compose axiomatic systems by which to explain the origin of mathematics. Were it possible to construct a complete and consistent set of such axioms, would that not point toward the Intuitionist view that math is a human creation?