- Joined
- Jun 6, 2014
- Messages
- 43,804
- Reaction score
- 8,672
- Location
- Flanders.
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
It is a possiblity.
I haven't got the time to read the paper, Zyz... but let me guess the conclusion - it's all in your head?
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.
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.
It is a possiblity.
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.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.
:roll: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.
“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.
What Is a Scientific Hypothesis? | Definition of Hypothesis | Live ScienceA 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.
WMAP Site FAQsThis 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."
: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: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.
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.
Originally Posted by SheWolf
If you understand basic science, you would know that speculation is not a scientific judgement.
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.
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.
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?
I will be brave. No.
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.
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.
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?
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?
Am I up for the challenge? You consider the question of humans and dinosaurs existing together as a challenge. :lamo
Where have you observed a prime number? Or any number outside of man made mathematics? What do you think numbers are?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?