• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Common Descent

For the record, Dawkins only postulated that consciousness could be a consequence of an organism's increasingly complex simulation of the world. The other part is my own speculation.

Instincts are powerful and they are probably developed as a consequence of natural selection. It is the predominating theory that eating cooked meat is responsible for the development of the modern human brain. I'm not even sure if humans used tools in any manner before this point. You have to remember that 2001 is fiction and you can't really be sure that apes used sticks either.

I don't know, Triton... it seems to me that cooking is a more advanced skill than clubbing something over the head. I figure the odds are pretty good we figured out how to kill with weapons long before we tamed fire.
 
So has the idea of magic. So has the idea of an unmoving Earth fixed in the sky with all the other stars and planets going around it. Doesn’t make those things real.

Almost every phenomenon which has traditionally been ascribed to souls or otherworldly entities has been found eventually to be reducible to physics one way or the other. And by reducing it that way, we have found we have gained much deeper understanding of things and all their complex interrelationships with everything else. And it has been a much more fruitful approach- This type of understanding has allowed us to do everything from engineering highly complex equipment to fixing previously recalcitrant physical ailments. However, I will grant you that mind-body dualism could still work out. It has not been definitively disproven. However, I would be very surprised, as it would be the first time in the history of science that we would have a phenomenon ultimately not reducible to basic physics. It would be very odd and improbable. But I guess we will see.

This is true... however, I do think it behooves us to examine the possibility that spiritual awareness is a by-product of sentience because we're fast approaching a time when artificial intelligence may well achieve sentience. You want to talk about unintended and unforeseen circumstances... what happens when that first computer becomes self-aware and starts asking us about God?
 
It is a possiblity.

Absolutely... and I definitely don't discount it... but then again, neither does the Bible. "According to your faith let it be done to you" - Matthew 9:29.

Here's my take... and it may sound totally off the wall, but hear me out. I don't deny there seems to be a link between the physical processes of our brain and our mental processes. Like electricity and the wiring it passes through. But what if how we experience those mental processes become so slowed down at the moment of death or near death, and with it, our perception of time becomes so slowed down that death itself becomes an eternity your experience in an instant?
 
I don't know, Triton... it seems to me that cooking is a more advanced skill than clubbing something over the head. I figure the odds are pretty good we figured out how to kill with weapons long before we tamed fire.
Beavers also make some fairly complex structures yet we don't really assign any unusual complexity to the beast. Trial and error is an efficient tool when you have an indefinite amount of time.
 
Beavers also make some fairly complex structures yet we don't really assign any unusual complexity to the beast. Trial and error is an efficient tool when you have an indefinite amount of time.

Beavers also eat a lot of fish... I'm posting this from right next to a lodge as we speak... never seen one of them through a Walleye on the BBQ, though.
 
If you understand basic science, you would know that speculation is not a scientific judgement.

Do you think people and dinosaurs existed at the same time?
:roll:

Quit posturing like as if you do.


You don't understand what you read.....that's why there's no way you can understand basic science! :mrgreen:

Read post #10 again.
 
:roll:

Quit posturing like as if you do.


You don't understand what you read.....that's why there's no way you can understand basic science! :mrgreen:

Read post #10 again.


“Speculation” in science is called a “hypotheses” and must be based on EVIDENCE of some sort. What do you not understand about that? To claim that it’s “just” speculation is a nonsense statement.
 
“Speculation” in science is called a “hypotheses” and must be based on EVIDENCE of some sort. What do you not understand about that? To claim that it’s “just” speculation is a nonsense statement.

Well of course I'm talking about speculations made by scientists! :lol:


A scientific hypothesis is the initial building block in the scientific method. Many describe it as an "educated guess," based on prior knowledge and observation.
While this is true, the definition can be expanded. A hypothesis also includes an explanation of why the guess may be correct, according to National Science Teachers Association.

Here are some examples of hypothesis statements:

If garlic repels fleas, then a dog that is given garlic every day will not get fleas.
Bacterial growth may be affected by moisture levels in the air.
If sugar causes cavities, then people who eat a lot of candy may be more prone to cavities.
If UV light can damage the eyes, then maybe UV light is a cause of blindness.
What Is a Scientific Hypothesis? | Definition of Hypothesis | Live Science




Lol - based on that definition and samples given - now you see why THEISTIC EVOLUTION is singled out by the NAS
as an hypothesis by scientists who believe in a God-created universe. It fits the definition! ;)



This belief, which sometimes is termed 'theistic evolution,' is not in disagreement with scientific explanations of evolution.

Indeed, it reflects the remarkable and inspiring character of the physical universe revealed by cosmology, paleontology, molecular biology, and many other scientific disciplines."
WMAP Site FAQs



Lol....maybe, when technology gets so advanced that it can also study the supernatural - then we'll know more, right?
 
Last edited:
:roll:

Quit posturing like as if you do.


You don't understand what you read.....that's why there's no way you can understand basic science! :mrgreen:

Read post #10 again.

Do you think humans and dinosaurs existed together?
 
Do you think humans and dinosaurs existed together?
:roll:


What I personally think is..............................irrelevant!


Lol. I thought you're talking about "basic science?" :lol:
And yet here you are asking for my personal opinion like as if that would matter!

If I even bring up my personal opinion........

........then Watsup would be screeching again: "BELIEF! BELIEF HAS NO PLACE IN SCIENCE!":lol:
You guys better get your act together. :mrgreen: Some atheists I can mention can only try to distract from the issue!

Quit posturing. The jig is up. I'm showing why I say you're posturing.


You don't understand what you read.....that's why I say there's no way you can understand basic science!

Read post #10 again.
 
Last edited:
:roll:


What I personally think is..............................irrelevant!


Lol. I thought you're talking about "basic science?" :lol:
And yet here you are asking for my personal opinion like as if that would matter!

If I even bring up my personal opinion........

........then Watsup would be screeching again: "BELIEF! BELIEF HAS NO PLACE IN SCIENCE!":lol:
You guys better get your act together. :mrgreen: Some atheists I can mention can only try to distract from the issue!

Quit posturing. The jig is up. I'm showing why I say you're posturing.


You don't understand what you read.....that's why I say there's no way you can understand basic science!

Read post #10 again.

I am not an atheist, and the question I am asking is one of scientific fact. It’s a personal opinion if people and dinosaurs existed at the same time.
 
I am not an atheist, and the question I am asking is one of scientific fact. It’s a personal opinion if people and dinosaurs existed at the same time.


You're more like providing support to my claim about you. I said, my personal opinion is irrelevant. Which part of that is hard to get?



This is the issue with you and I: you quoted me, and said I don't understand "basic science."

The irony of it - by doing that, you gave yourself away. :shrug:


You don't understand what you read.....that's why I say there's no way you can understand basic science!






Originally Posted by SheWolf

If you understand basic science, you would know that speculation is not a scientific judgement.

Bingo! :mrgreen:

You don't understand what you read. :shrug:



.....or, could it be you're mistakenly barking at the wrong tree? Your statement is actually meant for Watsup? :lol:



Read post #10 again.




See? You should be directing your lecture at Watsup. ;) Let me help you.....
 
Last edited:
In another thread, Tosca was expressing skepticism that all living organism on this particular planet share a common ancestor, so I told him to do some research in that regard. He wanted a new thread instead, somhere it is. Let’s start with an article that does not get real deep into the topic but gives a good overview: Ancestor of All Living Things More Sophisticated than Thought | Live Science

Here are the first few paragraphs of the article:

“The mysterious common ancestor of all life on Earth may have been more complex than before thought — a sophisticated organism with an intricate structure, scientists now suggest.

The last universal common ancestor, or LUCA, is what researchers call the forerunner of all living things. Much about LUCA remains enigmatic — many think it was little more than a primitive assemblage of molecular parts, a chemical soup from which evolution gradually built more complex forms. Some even debate whether it was even a cell. [Theories on Earth's First Life]

Now, after years of research into a once-neglected feature of microbes, scientists suggest the last universal common ancestor was indeed complex, and recognizable as a cell.”



In addition, It has been estimated to have lived some four billion years ago, when Earth was a mere 560 million years old.

There ya go, Tosca. Have at it.


Hi Watsup. Shewolf's confused. I think her message is meant for you.



Originally Posted by SheWolf

If you understand basic science, you would know that speculation is not a scientific judgement.
 
I am not an atheist, and the question I am asking is one of scientific fact. It’s a personal opinion if people and dinosaurs existed at the same time.

I will be brave. No.
 
You're more like providing support to my claim about you. I said, my personal opinion is irrelevant. Which part of that is hard to get?



This is the issue with you and I: you quoted me, and said I don't understand "basic science."

The irony of it - by doing that, you gave yourself away. :shrug:


You don't understand what you read.....that's why I say there's no way you can understand basic science!








Bingo! :mrgreen:

You don't understand what you read. :shrug:



.....or, could it be you're mistakenly barking at the wrong tree? Your statement is actually meant for Watsup? :lol:



Read post #10 again.




See? You should be directing your lecture at Watsup. ;) Let me help you.....

Did science prove that humans and dinosaurs live together?
 
Did science prove that humans and dinosaurs live together?

Irrelevant.
Create a thread for it.....let's have a go at it.
Are you up to that challenge?

Give me notice when you've created a thread.





Stay on-topic:


Read post #10 again.




Here's a relevant question for you:


Did science prove the LUCA (Last Universal Common Ancestor)?


Yes or no.




I will be brave. No.

Glad to see you coming out of your shell. Did lightning strike you? See? Nothing to be afraid of. Wasn't so hard, was it? :lol:

Okay - now that you've finally mustered up some courage - let's see if it's just a fluke. :mrgreen:



Based on the article quoted on post #10, answer this:


Did science prove the LUCA (Last Universal Common Ancestor)?


Yes or no.
 
Last edited:
Irrelevant.
Create a thread for it.....let's have a go at it.
Are you up to that challenge?

Give me notice when you've created a thread.





Stay on-topic:


Read post #10 again.




Here's a relevant question for you:


Did science prove the LUCA (Last Universal Common Ancestor)?


Yes or no.






Glad to see you coming out of your shell. Did lightning strike you? See? Nothing to be afraid of. Wasn't so hard, was it? :lol:

Okay - now that you've finally mustered up some courage - let's see if it's just a fluke. :mrgreen:



Based on the article quoted on post #10, answer this:


Did science prove the LUCA (Last Universal Common Ancestor)?


Yes or no.

Am I up for the challenge? You consider the question of humans and dinosaurs existing together as a challenge. :lamo
 
Irrelevant.
Create a thread for it.....let's have a go at it.
Are you up to that challenge?

Give me notice when you've created a thread.





Stay on-topic:


Read post #10 again.




Here's a relevant question for you:


Did science prove the LUCA (Last Universal Common Ancestor)?


Yes or no.






Glad to see you coming out of your shell. Did lightning strike you? See? Nothing to be afraid of. Wasn't so hard, was it? :lol:

Okay - now that you've finally mustered up some courage - let's see if it's just a fluke. :mrgreen:



Based on the article quoted on post #10, answer this:


Did science prove the LUCA (Last Universal Common Ancestor)?


Yes or no.


When you use the word “prove” with respect to science, all that you do is to highlight that you simply don’t understand what science is all about. I have mentioned this to you before. Science is NOT about “proof” it is about EVIDENCE. And EVIDENCE for LUCA is clear. That’s why evolutionary biologists continue to study it. Please stop making nonsense statements about science.
 
Well of course I'm talking about speculations made by scientists! :lol:



What Is a Scientific Hypothesis? | Definition of Hypothesis | Live Science




Lol - based on that definition and samples given - now you see why THEISTIC EVOLUTION is singled out by the NAS
as an hypothesis by scientists who believe in a God-created universe. It fits the definition! ;)




WMAP Site FAQs



Lol....maybe, when technology gets so advanced that it can also study the supernatural - then we'll know more, right?

Theistic evolution is not a scientific hypothesis.
 
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?

Where have you observed a prime number? Or any number outside of man made mathematics? What do you think numbers are?
 
Am I up for the challenge? You consider the question of humans and dinosaurs existing together as a challenge. :lamo

Why would anyone take it as a challenge? Dinosaurs died out long before humans came along. That is a fact and not a challenge. If I asked anyone I knew if humans and dinosaurs existed at the same time they would all say no. Why tosca goes into huge red font mode is a mystery.
 
Where have you observed a prime number? Or any number outside of man made mathematics? What do you think numbers are?

I'm wondering what you think they are, David. Do you actually think quantities don't exist unless we count them? 52 trees on a hillside are 52 trees on a hillside whether or not anyone ever actually counts them, are they not?
 
Back
Top Bottom