why I hate evolution..

reply to post by MrXYZ

No you haven't given an answer...you simply pretend humans have only their senses to rely on, which is utter BULL#!!

Plz enlighten me with what other sources you have.
Just one.

reply to post by Barcs

No, I'm saying because its backed by objective evidence that it's true. I'm not saying it is absolutely 100% undeniable truth, but it's our best guess based on evidence, and it works.

See. You are repeating the same thing.
I am not questioning the objective evidence but the sources which enable you to analyze them.

I don't recall judging you. I'm merely defending science here. But I'm ignorant because I understand WHY it works. Why does the earth revolve around the sun? Why does the earth rotate on an axis? Why does the sun give off energy? Why do we see the northern lights? Why do we have thunderstorms? All of these are easily answered by science along with hundreds and thousands of other questions.

You don't know why only how.
If science answers a question, it creates a thousand. It is a tool to keep you chained to this realm for eternity.

What lie? What nonsense am I talking? You tell me about repeating things, but yet you repeat all of your points and insult me in the process, without posting any evidence.

Someone said because billions of people think the same, it proves senses are reliable.
It was not you, i am sorry.
Just confused answering many posters.

What does that have to do with science or this conversation?

See. It's the real thing.
Try putting 'senses' in place of 'i'.
The mind and senses are making programs called scientific thinking which are being experienced by us
Now the science is very reliable but can it measure the reliability of the mind and the senses, the program makers.

What do you have against science? Why do you think the brain is not reliable to observe repeated tested results that never change? It sounds like you are trying to make the argument that the universe is a computer program, and therefor everything we see is subjective. That may be possible, but it doesn't mean science is wrong. In this dimension we live in, science is a reliable way to gain facts and knowledge. Do you deny this? I'm not sure what exactly you are trying to argue about.

I think the brain is not reliable because it isn't my creation. I don't know how it works except the knowledge it gives about itself.
Will you believe the knowledge given by a stranger which you can't verify.

Originally posted by deepankarm
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

No you haven't given an answer...you simply pretend humans have only their senses to rely on, which is utter BULL#!!

Plz enlighten me with what other sources you have.
Just one.

As I said, TONS of other sources thanks to technology. Human senses can't see or examine radiation like technology can, the same goes for light of which we only see a tiny spectrum without technology...or noise (like the sound of bats) that we also only hear using technology. And of course there's gravity, which human senses also can't examine like technology can.

In short, there are PLENTY of ways technology makes up for the shortcomings of our senses

Originally posted by deepankarm
You don't know why only how.
If science answers a question, it creates a thousand. It is a tool to keep you chained to this realm for eternity.

No, we know precisely WHY. Why do you see the northern lights? Because the earth's magnetosphere absorbs solar ejections and it collects at the magnetic pole. This answers the why and the how. Just because there isn't a magical answer to the why question, doesn't mean that it is unreliable or unanswered.

See. It's the real thing.
Try putting 'senses' in place of 'i'.
The mind and senses are making programs called scientific thinking which are being experienced by us
Now the science is very reliable but can it measure the reliability of the mind and the senses, the program makers.

Yes, science can measure the reliability of the mind and senses. What do you think optometrists do for a living? Senses are nothing more than electrical impulses sent to the brain to show what we see/feel/taste/smell/hear in this physical reality. You can argue that the reality isn't real, but that's pure guesswork and doesn't mean we aren't reliable to observe and utilize science.

I think the brain is not reliable because it isn't my creation. I don't know how it works except the knowledge it gives about itself.
Will you believe the knowledge given by a stranger which you can't verify.

The brain evolved slowly over millions of years, it wasn't created by anyone. Just because you didn't make your own brain, does not mean its not reliable.

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by deepankarm
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

No you haven't given an answer...you simply pretend humans have only their senses to rely on, which is utter BULL#!!

Plz enlighten me with what other sources you have.
Just one.

As I said, TONS of other sources thanks to technology. Human senses can't see or examine radiation like technology can, the same goes for light of which we only see a tiny spectrum without technology...or noise (like the sound of bats) that we also only hear using technology. And of course there's gravity, which human senses also can't examine like technology can.

In short, there are PLENTY of ways technology makes up for the shortcomings of our senses

Oh my!! It's your senses which ultimately see the radiation. The techs only provide a conversion.
Broaden your logic dear.

reply to post by Barcs

o, we know precisely WHY. Why do you see the northern lights? Because the earth's magnetosphere absorbs solar ejections and it collects at the magnetic pole. This answers the why and the how. Just because there isn't a magical answer to the why question, doesn't mean that it is unreliable or

Oh yeah. I can put up thousands of questions about the answer you provided. That's why i was telling you that science dosen't answer, it creates questions.

s, science can measure the reliability of the mind and senses. What do you think optometrists do for a living? Senses are nothing more than electrical impulses sent to the brain to show what we see/feel/taste/smell/hear in this physical reality. You can argue that the reality isn't real, but that's pure guesswork and doesn't mean we aren't reliable to observe and utilize science.

Are you serious??
You know i think you don't comprehend what i am trying to point out.
Will you believe a program's opinion of a person made by that person himself ??

The brain evolved slowly over millions of years, it wasn't created by anyone. Just because you didn't make your own brain, does not mean its not reliable.

Yeah and because your brain tells you so.
So the logic is-- Science is correct because the mind and senses tell you so.
Also mind and senses are reliable and correct because the science tells us so.
Lol.
That's why i group science with organized religion , they both can control a person and the person wouldn't know.

Originally posted by deepankarm

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by deepankarm
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

No you haven't given an answer...you simply pretend humans have only their senses to rely on, which is utter BULL#!!

Plz enlighten me with what other sources you have.
Just one.

As I said, TONS of other sources thanks to technology. Human senses can't see or examine radiation like technology can, the same goes for light of which we only see a tiny spectrum without technology...or noise (like the sound of bats) that we also only hear using technology. And of course there's gravity, which human senses also can't examine like technology can.

In short, there are PLENTY of ways technology makes up for the shortcomings of our senses

Oh my!! It's your senses which ultimately see the radiation. The techs only provide a conversion.
Broaden your logic dear.

So basically, you don't accept reality whatsoever, got it

How does it feel to live in fantasy land?

Kinda funny how you claim scientists can't really know stuff...yet here you are, posting nonsense on the Internet (invented through science) on a computer (also invented by science) using electricity (also invented by science).

Originally posted by deepankarm
reply to post by Barcs
Oh yeah. I can put up thousands of questions about the answer you provided. That's why i was telling you that science dosen't answer, it creates questions.

But science DOES answer those questions. Just because more questions arise, doesn't mean they can't be answered or they are unreliable answers. The fact that it brings up more questions, gives the scientists more things to study and try to figure out. Ask your thousand questions about the magnetosphere absorbing solar wind or deflecting other ejections from the sun. I guarantee almost all of them can be answered, unless you start asking philosophical questions, rather than scientific ones. Science doesn't know everything, however.

You know i think you don't comprehend what i am trying to point out.
Will you believe a program's opinion of a person made by that person himself ??

You are right. I have no clue what your point is, or what you are trying to prove. Unless you've got evidence to suggest we are programmed, your argument is pure guesswork and is irrelevant to the fact that science is reliable and works in the world we live in.

Yeah and because your brain tells you so. So the logic is-- Science is correct because the mind and senses tell you so.

NO! Did you ignore every point I made? Once again, we can observe and run experiments on certain phenomena, with repeated results. That is not the brain just making something up and believing it. It is backed by evidence, and by other people doing the same experiments to verify the results, and this method has proven reliable in learning how things work and how to apply it to modern technology. Believing in god or a computer program as the universe is just believing it because your brain tells you (or someone else told you). It is a guess while science is not.

Also mind and senses are reliable and correct because the science tells us so.
That's why i group science with organized religion , they both can control a person and the person wouldn't know.

That's also why you have a very poor understanding of how science works. If you are claiming science is an illusion, you need to present evidence, because it has proven reliable time and time again. Our senses are not perfect, but they don't need to be to realize the earth revolves around the sun and the millions of other scientific facts we have learned over the years. If reality is programmed, it doesn't matter, because the science still works. There may be more to the picture than we are currently aware of, but that doesn't change the fact that science is a accurate tool for gathering facts in this realm of existence.

Let me ask you this. If our reality is programmed, then why did they waste trillions and trillions of lines of code to make a universe so ridiculously large, with such a huge variety of galaxies and stars when life is so incredibly rare and can barely be supported anywhere? How do you program consciousness and sensory perception? Where did the programmer come from? Your hypothesis brings up way more unanswerable questions than science does, that's for sure.

reply to post by Tbrooks76


evolution is as much a fallacy as creationism... The truth of our existence is far more beautiful and simple....

Originally posted by purplemer
reply to post by Tbrooks76

 

evolution is as much a fallacy as creationism... The truth of our existence is far more beautiful and simple....

So according to you, a scientific theory fully backed up by objective evidence and ACTIVELY APPLIED in modern medicine and a religious believe with ZERO objective evidence are both equally untrue...yet you pretend to know an alternative that is super??

Please...enlighten us

reply to post by MrXYZ

So according to you, a scientific theory fully backed up by objective evidence and ACTIVELY APPLIED in modern medicine and a religious believe with ZERO objective evidence are both equally untrue...yet you pretend to know an alternative that is super??

Idk it looks to me that your mind is made up already.. You can bring a horse to water.. But you cannot make it drink. I have a BSc in both life science and Environmental Science and that has taught me one thing. Really we know zero squat about the process of evolution. Please enlighten me as to where evolution is ACTIVELY APPLIED in modern medicine.
Stop for a minute and look around and see what science is good at. We are living through a revolution in electronics.. I dont see us living through a revolution in biology.. Nothing has changed much there. We are still dying of cancer. Heck they cannot even cure the common cold. The present theories of evolution are not true science.. Why because they cannot be falsified. All science works should work falsification.

What makes you think that classic science is any different to religion. I can clearly see you have made a distinction between the too. Both are philosophies and both are based on a belief systems. Neither of them are sustainable enough to understand the processes at work create complex life forms. The beleif system you are pertaining to is Cartesian in nature. It is an old outdated view point that worked in Victorian times..

Move it up a few pegs. Our understanding of reality today is far different and the neo sciences support this. Have a read up on quantum physics and have a good think about it. It clearly states that matter cannot exist without a conscious energy to observe it. Where does that leave your theories of evolution. Matter is an epiphenomena of the mind not the other way around. Once you understand that anything is possible. If you are really interested in learning and I dont think you are. Try dipping into something like Creative evolution by Amit Goswami...

A nice intoduction to the realms of the quantum universe can be seen in What the bleep do we know... You can watch it on utube...

www.youtube.com...

reply to post by purplemer


So basically because science doesn't have all the answer they can't know anything...that makes NO SENSE whatsoever

And regarding the quantum universe and similar theories...they are part of THEORETICAL PHYSICS. It's an entirely different field.

reply to post by purplemer


Let's see: science is based on objective evidence whilst religion is based entirely on faith. Throughout human history, people from all ages around the world have independently discovered the same, objective truths whilst religion has tens of thousands of conflicting myths that all reach different conclusions. So yeah, science is like the complete opposite of religion, really.

Also, What The Bleep is a bunch of New Age quackery. If you're getting your "science" from someone such sources, I'm not surprised you have such a distorted view of it.

reply to post by MrXYZ

So basically because science doesn't have all the answer they can't know anything...that makes NO SENSE whatsoever And regarding the quantum universe and similar theories...they are part of THEORETICAL PHYSICS. It's an entirely different field.

Go back and this time try reading my post.. As I said. You can take a horse to water but you cannot make it drink..

Further FYI quantum physics is applied in Science. But I am not going to bother explaining that to you since you didnt even bother to read my last post... Some people dont want to learn and treat there knowledge like a religion. You Sir are one of these people...

reply to post by john_bmth

Let's see: science is based on objective evidence whilst religion is based entirely on faith. Throughout human history, people from all ages around the world have independently discovered the same, objective truths whilst religion has tens of thousands of conflicting myths that all reach different conclusions. So yeah, science is like the complete opposite of religion, really.

Hello John.
Please explain how science is based on objective evidence. Most science these days is funded by big business.. Who choices what we study.. What is objective in that. What is objective about who chooses what we look for. No these require human qualities and we both know that humans are far from objective.

Science would like to think itself objective.. Answer me this what is objective about a zero or infinity. These certainly are not objective qualities. They are more artistic in nature. They are both undefinable and thrown around like we understand what they are.. The language of science is sandwiched between too undefinable factors and we claim to understand that which falls inside these parameters. Think again. We exist on a little rock in a universe we have very little understanding of and claim to understand things like this.

What of the philosophy of science. You yourself its based on objective evidence. It is infant based on dualism. A subject and an object. What makes you think that the entire universe is going to fit into the remit of such a small man made metal tool.

What of objectivity.. It breaks down when the scientific observer has an affect on an object. No longer objective.

Religion is not entirely based on faith. Some religions claim to be gnostic in nature. Yes religion has tens of thousands of myths that controlled each other. Science any different. No it has tens of thousands of theroies that contradict each other.

What makes you think religions does not have objective results.. Try telling that to the monks that practise the same ritual and then get the same results.. Soz bud if thats the best you can come with in truth there is little in it...

Originally posted by purplemer
Hello John.
Please explain how science is based on objective evidence. Most science these days is funded by big business.. Who choices what we study.. What is objective in that. What is objective about who chooses what we look for. No these require human qualities and we both know that humans are far from objective.

"Most science" is not funded by bug business, and even if it were, it's objective because anyone else can repeat the experiments and get the same result independently if they so choose.

Science would like to think itself objective.. Answer me this what is objective about a zero or infinity. These certainly are not objective qualities.

This a complete non-sequitur. In any case, mathematics has clear definitions for these concepts, they are not subjective.

They are more artistic in nature. They are both undefinable and thrown around like we understand what they are..

Again, they have very clear definitions in mathematics. If you cannot understand them, that is not the fault of the scientific (or mathematical) community.

The language of science is sandwiched between too undefinable factors and we claim to understand that which falls inside these parameters.

What are you trying to say here? Science is a methodology for objectively understanding and explaining reality. I have no idea why you are trying to crowbar the mathematical concept of infinity into it as what you are saying does not make sense.

Think again. We exist on a little rock in a universe we have very little understanding of and claim to understand things like this.

Science has done a very impressive job of explaining much of reality so far. How does science not knowing everything right now in any way make it subjective? Methinks you need to understand the definitions of the words 'subjective' and 'objective' as you seem to be ascribing them to things in a nonsensical way.

What of the philosophy of science. You yourself its based on objective evidence. It is infant based on dualism. A subject and an object. What makes you think that the entire universe is going to fit into the remit of such a small man made metal tool.

What of objectivity.. It breaks down when the scientific observer has an affect on an object. No longer objective.

You're getting vague and wishy washy here. You need to state you case far more clearly and succinctly. Attacking science whilst demonstrating a complete lack of scientific literacy is not helping your case.

Religion is not entirely based on faith.

Yes it is.

Some religions claim to be gnostic in nature. Yes religion has tens of thousands of myths that controlled each other. Science any different. No it has tens of thousands of theroies that contradict each other.

Science doesn't have tens of thousands of conflicting theories explaining the same thing. Regardless, the role of a scientific theory is to explain and interpret scientific facts. Making them analogous to religious myths only exposes your scientific illiteracy.

What makes you think religions does not have objective results..

Go on then, what results are these?

Try telling that to the monks that practise the same ritual and then get the same results.. Soz bud if thats the best you can come with in truth there is little in it...

That's not what objective evidence is. Again, I think you have a very inaccurate understanding of what is subjective and objective. Read up on scientific method. Educate yourself before attacking and dismissing it out of hand.

Originally posted by purplemer
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

So basically because science doesn't have all the answer they can't know anything...that makes NO SENSE whatsoever And regarding the quantum universe and similar theories...they are part of THEORETICAL PHYSICS. It's an entirely different field.

Go back and this time try reading my post.. As I said. You can take a horse to water but you cannot make it drink..

Further FYI quantum physics is applied in Science. But I am not going to bother explaining that to you since you didnt even bother to read my last post... Some people dont want to learn and treat there knowledge like a religion. You Sir are one of these people...

There's a difference between quantum computing and making outrageous claims about reality based on some hypothesis (!) related to quantum theory.

And my mind is made up (at least for now) because the objective evidence supports the theory of evolution. As for the theory being applied in modern medicine...one field they use it daily is when they adapt medicine to bacteria that builds up a resistance against that medicine.

reply to post by purplemer


We haven't even begun to understand quantum science, let alone test the hypotheses behind it. There's a reason that it's called theoretical physics. It's based on mathematical theories of everything, not on objective tangible evidence or testable results like evolution, biology and genetics.

It's funny, every time I read the title of this thread I envision some angry dude with a big beard growling and cursing to himself, while pacing back and forth.

EDIT: Here's the guy I was envisioning.

Damn you evolution! Whyyyyyyyyyyy?