Darnoc Posted December 31, 2003 Share Posted December 31, 2003 Okidoki, I leave philosophy out of here (even if I believe that philosophy is everywhere and it is not possible not to make philosophy). Probability? That was what I was talking all the time. I used the example of existence to show that nothing in the end can be proven (or the other way round: you can prove everything, if you want to). So it's all about what is more probable. And I think that there you can't find an answer, because everything is about the same probable. It is even probable that we are all in a big computer game who someone plays on a super-computer, so you can also forget about probability, because in the end everything and nothing is probably. This leads us to a no-way-out situation, because then nothing or everything can be true and it will be never possible to find out the truth. Back to science: There are so much arguments for and against evolution and creationism that they are both the same probable or unprobable, so we could go on discussing on and on without finding a solution, which makes the whole discussion meaningless. And a discussion without a solution can be very interesting, but in the end it is meaningless and a waste of good time (OK, the same is said about philosophy :D ). But I just like to discuss such things and so the discussion will go on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Akrid Posted December 31, 2003 Author Share Posted December 31, 2003 I'm sorry if I made anyone angry, but I'm a philosopher and I always try to prove that you can't prove anything at all and that in the end everything is a matter of believe or not believe. And I also question everything I get accros and I always try to challenge people who believe in something. This time it was evolution I questioned, next time I will question the existence of god or aliens or I question the way the USA acts at the moment. It's always something else and I must say, I enjoy doin it Oh you poor wayward child. Perhaps you are not familair with the defintion of "proof" Proof is what humans deem as somthing factual based on common undeniable senses (and it gets a little more complex but OT) Like for exsample I see my hand so I know it's real, I am refering to theories based on human understanding, just because if I was a figment, without any reason to believe I was dose not mean my theory is wrong. There is much evidence to back evolution. And I never said I believe evolution is absolute fact, because I can't sense it the same way as seeing I have a hand, I must reaserch for the long lost answers or study other reaserch, but your reasons for doubting the theory I found to be malarky. @acrid: The border between micro and macro evolution is reached, when a species originated from another species can't reproduce with the species it originated from. All the species living today of which we now that they originated from another species living today can reproduce with the species of their origin (e.g. a dog can reproduce with a wolve). That is why there is no empiric prove or observation for macro evolution, only for micro evolution. Everything else is purely a matter of interpretation and is so hypophetical (you can't really prove that a fossil was the origin of a today living lifeform, but you do assume it normally). There is no doubt a diffrence between those evolutions, but who's to say there is a border to keep micro from becoming macro, this proces takes hundreds of thousands of years at least, ofcourse it's never been doucumented. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darnoc Posted December 31, 2003 Share Posted December 31, 2003 Well, about seeing your hand and then its proven: You ever watched Matrix? Perhaps you are familiar with the cognition-theory. As the name tells, this is about what we can recognise as truth. The film "Matrix" uses a lot from this theory. How can you be sure that you really see your hand, when it's only some electrical signals sent to your brain? To this I was refering when I talked about "proof". The cognition-theory states that only those things can be certain which you can't doubt. Because it is possible to doubt everything and always to find a different explenation, nothing is certain. Simply spoken: You can't prove anything, not even you're own existence. When you can't even prove that you do exist or that you are not connected to a big computer, how can you prove anything which you can't even observe like the past? And about the "poor wayward child": I'm not insulting you, even when I'm not agreeing with you. So, let us please leave out anything which could conclude that we are not rational beings talking in a rational discussion. Whatever you may think, I think that we are both people in a discussion on an equal level and that we are both rational and intelligent human beings. And something else: My legal status is not that of a child, I'm 18 years old, so in my country I'm considered an adult person. I treat you like an adult, rational and intelligent person who can think for himself, so please do the same. I really like this discussion and I don't want it to become a battle of insults or something else which is not a discussion at all. That means, we should both not doubt the others intelligence or capability of thinking for themselves. Thanks for your understanding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Akrid Posted December 31, 2003 Author Share Posted December 31, 2003 I justify my insult, if thats how you take it (I would) as your intellegence failed to impress me, due to your lack relevance to the topic. However you are right that you don't deserve to be insulted, even if I do think that of my interpretation of you by your post. I already insulted you though, and I wont take back somthing unless I think is was incorrect not inaproprate, you coud have eaisly attacked my poor spelling (I type fast and don't care) or point of veiw and you did not retaliate. Therefore take consolation in knowing you got the best of me in that exchange. The Dark0ne often talks down to less intellegent posters but, I'm not him and don't have his right to do as such, so I still consider you wayword, but I should of kept it to myself, and kept to a more logical response. I could argue that because we can't proof we really exist we don't know anything rather than what our senses tell us, I mean come on, like we should anyway? why? how? for what reason would it serve? We are animals evoled to suit the lifes we made for ourselfs, I most likey believe, but can't claim to know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darnoc Posted December 31, 2003 Share Posted December 31, 2003 Because I'm more of a rationalist than an empirist, I would disagree with you. We can more rely on what our mind tells us than on what our senses tell us, because they can trick us. But this is a detail and of course the basic of science is empirism and not rationalism. And of course I'm not a student of natural science. I'm a student of languages, philosophy and history. I don't know how this is with you, but you sound like a student of natural sciences, so your knowlegde there would be greater than mine. As an addition: There are different kinds of intelligences. You are perhaps good at logics, mathematics and natural sciences, I'm good in philosophy and languages. We must accept our differences and live with them. And I'm not angry with you, even I often say things I do later regrett (we are all humans). I just opened a philosophical thread, this will suit me more :D You're of course always welcome to join a discussion. I like challenges ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Akrid Posted December 31, 2003 Author Share Posted December 31, 2003 My avator (not the profile pic) is a metroid, and like a metroid I will jump on you and suck your energy dry untill I fight the mother brain. but why am I defending my thread alone here? I thought I had other pro-evolutionist here also. Well I feel a responsability to keep a thread I made alive untill the discussionn is concluded. I would ask anyone else who want's to challenge my evolution belief here to read up. Many good points have been made in this thread. Who know's it just might change you...... ...into a monkey! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hundinman Posted January 1, 2004 Share Posted January 1, 2004 I am a Christian and I agree with Incanus. He stated very well that no record of every stage of evolution has been found. Almost every city mentioned in the Christian Bible have been found with proof that it is the city that they are looking for. If we evolved so manay times from neanderthals into what we are today (still not perfect creatures) why are we not still evolving into yet better creatures? People have asked for proof of evolution and someone tried to give it but it is not convincing enough. Darwin admitted that he was wong with his theory. He knew that no fossil was found of the stages of evolution. Therefore, I still believe that God created the heavens and the earth in six days and rested on the seventh. I believe that the days he created them in were 24 hour days: 12 hours of day, 12 hours of night. Every evolutionist, athiest, and every thing else that does not supprt creationism will see that you are wrong in the end. this is not my opinion but my belief. God bless and happy new year! Hundinman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Akrid Posted January 1, 2004 Author Share Posted January 1, 2004 In all due fairness fossils date back billions of years father than the bible and refer to millions more referances. Also I don't even need to counter this, because it already has been, read the thread, it's like a short book. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hundinman Posted January 1, 2004 Share Posted January 1, 2004 Well, you said that fossils go back millions of years before the bible? IMPOSSIBLE If you read the first 2 verses of the Bible you will notice that it talks about God creating the heavens and the earth, no fossil could possibly exist before an earth was created now could it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hayabusa Posted January 1, 2004 Share Posted January 1, 2004 Yes. But you shouldn`t treat the Bible literarly. As I was told by a priest who is a Biblist ( it means, he studies the Bible and that is his most important part of the service ) the history of the Creation is not litteral, but it`s told like that mostly to point out it wasn`t just one moment and you got everything from nothing and that all what exist is in fact God`s creation. ( or: was started, because God wanted it to start). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.