Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Just to say, ty for the thoughts. I believe in evolution personally, but think its corroborated (ie has evidence and passes strict tests, but is not therefore irrefutable "true")... I would have been 100% evolutionist, excepting for my faith, which conflicts with evolutionary theory (Adam and Eve etc.) - yet I think I am more up to date now that I would have been in the philosophy department, just because I would have been more sure than possibly I ought, given the tendency for paradigm shifts and revolutions in science.Oh, I see. Well, I guess you have a point there if you consider necessary/basal assumptions in a process as presuppositions. The difference I see though is that these "presuppositions" as used in science and the scientific method are in turn validated by their use in a way that isn't possible with a presupposition of a creator deity in any context you choose otherwise. Is there any presuppositions like this in science?
Well, Science doesn't interpret data, let alone assume anything on it - people do that. I disagree with you on not being able to prove/disprove scientific realism though, it can be demonstrated, and that demonstration is the evidence (though not absolute proof) of its validity. We make the same basal assumptions for syllogistic logic in philosophy, and I would imagine you accept that as being effective, no? The data from most scientific experiments are generally freely available so you can interpret the raw data yourself if you understand what you're looking at. The method used to acquire that data is what you seem to have issues with - and again, the basal assumptions used in the scientific method, are validated by their use in the same way syllogistic logic is validated by its use - are they not? We benefit from the practical applications of science all the time so I'd assume you would agree with that - but correct me if I'm mistaken.
Right, Wheeler's PAP isn't a scientific theory, nor is it considered in the scientific method as practiced so not sure why you think this is some sort of issue for science - the scientific method when applied to a problem generally produces meaningful and practically applicable results we can use. The "billions of years" are one such result borne out of the data from such scientific pursuits irrespective of such ideas as Wheeler's PAP, but instead is built on a well-established line of concordant foundational results that came before it. That's not to say it's infallible, but that the method (and any assumptions that came with it) have been extensively validated and is therefore most likely concordant with reality. If we come about information that upsets this paradigm, then the theories and data that came from them are revisited and/or refined to be more accurate. In some extreme cases, a theory might be discarded and/or replaced with a better theory.
In all this talk, it seems you have a problem with reality - do you not agree that we share this one and only reality we experience? Do you not agree that we can know things about it? Are you a solipsist?
Well, I haven't read up on McFadden's "Quantum Evolution" and don't intend to anytime soon, so I'll have to take it under advisement, I'm certainly not at the pointy end of that field...
well Sure, it continues to give us practical useable results all the time, so why not?
McFadden's ideas about the possibility of specific quantum influences on abiogenesis, evolution, and consciousness, have been shown to be either completely mistaken (e.g. trying to apply unitary wavefunction dynamics to entire cells), or vastly more improbable than the ideas he's trying to better (e.g. the application of the 'inverse quantum Zeno effect' to the creation of self-replicating peptides).
I'm doing none of the sort. We are all literally Apes.
I'm not sure that's the case - I recently read a study that concluded Neanderthals had as much, if not more intelligence than we did.
with completely specific DNA that could only happened if they were actually a divergent species of hominid and not Homo Sapien.
Lucky guess of course.... even if your fringe interpretations were right (and of course, we have already given very good demonstrations on why you aren't right). The Earth's surface is literally two thirds covered in water. Even an uneducated guess would have better odds supposing Life began in water.
Well, as you know, Science doesn't offer irrefutable "Proof" or 100% certainty in anything anyway, so there's always going to be that element of corroboration in any scientific research - but with evolution, it's the only game in town as far as scientific explanations go. It literally has mountains of evidence and has no competition in the science arena. I've often thought that were there a Creator of the Universe, then Evolution had to be how he created us, and Adam and Eve were the intellectually capable "First Humans" that the Qur'an/Bible/Torah speaks of in Genesis.
If you really wanted to get serious, then you're right, you'll likely have to find a science forum or university research community to melt your brain properly...
Elephants are intellectual, so are dolphins and whales... and Neanderthals too, as it turns out.
At least we have all the evidence to support our allegedly "false" assumptions. What would be worse is having no evidence to support your apparently correct position - so much so that an average person would start questioning the dearth of evidence for their own position while having to fend off enormous quantities of evidence that disproves your position.... so tell me, what does that feel like Aman?
We can be right for the wrong reasons - but that's nothing a little education can't fix - provided you're willing & up to it, of course...
lol! it isn't me that has no evidence for a far-fetched interpretation that doesn't correspond to reality - You on the other hand...
Possibly, there might've been a neanderthal named Adam, how would I know? Doubt that an Adam was the common ancestor to all humans though - our genetics don't indicate a sole male parent.
I'll accept the findings of Science because it consistently gives us usable, practical results we can employ to improve our circumstances.
