If Evolution is true, aren't parasites to Evolution inevitable?

Gottservant · Jun 24, 2019

Hi there,

So yeah, I just had this thought that if Evolution is as true as is said, what we should find is a number of parasites that add themselves on, whereever Evolution is found.

Like why doesn't the average human get a variation of the flu, for life?

The argument is basically that a selection pressure is non-local, give or take - since there is no telos to the Evolution, that would select against multiple attempts (at the same Evolution).

I mean we all have gut bugs, right? Dogs and cats have to be wormed?? For another example.

The difference is these examples of adaptation are here or there, whereas if Evolution was unmitigated, the instances would be both uniform and pervasive.

Certainly if they were not found immediately, they would be found over time? The answer would be as if those things that Evolved kept evolving, in order remain distinct from parasites??

Evolution is its own selection pressure?

Shemjaza · Jun 24, 2019

But there are.

Every body is full of parasites and symbiotes. Even some mostly negative parasites give the benifit of adding resistance to newer invaders.

There's no reason to think it should be uniform and consistent. Environments and populations constantly change and adapt.

the iconoclast · Jun 25, 2019

Shemjaza said:
Now science the system (also imperfect) is designed to mitigate human failings in an attempt to get to the truth.

Hey hey shem my friend

Wow an australian and a greens supporter. What do you mean here in respect to science, truth and mitigating failings?

Cheers

Shemjaza · Jun 25, 2019

the iconoclast said:
Hey hey shem my friend

Wow an australian and a greens supporter. What do you mean here in respect to science, truth and mitigating failings?

Cheers

I take as an axiom that there is a truth to the universe. That even though things might not be known or even knowable there is such a thing as truth.

All humans are imperfect, prone to bias and mistakes, so their methods of approaching the truth will be coloured by this.

Science is a method that focusing on results from specific repeatable ways of getting information. This means that individual humans won't just have their own opinion on facts and ideas, but a detailed system that can be viewed and understood independently.

the iconoclast · Jun 26, 2019

Shemjaza said:
I take as an axiom that there is a truth to the universe.

Hey hey and thank you for your reply.

how r things in the land down under?

What do you mean by there is truth to the universe? What truth do you refer to?

Shemjaza said:
That even though things might not be known or even knowable there is such a thing as truth.

What is an example that can not be known or even knowlable in relation to truth?

Shemjaza said:
All humans are imperfect, prone to bias and mistakes, so their methods of approaching the truth will be coloured by this.

I believe humans are cleaver and some can be crafty. Humans can get things wrong but they can also get things right.

Shemjaza said:
Science is a method that focusing on results from specific repeatable ways of getting information. This means that individual humans won't just have their own opinion on facts and ideas, but a detailed system that can be viewed and understood independently.

Science is the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

The scientific method is the procedure.

(.eg a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.)

Humans are the ones who reason with facts.

Humans are the ones who observe, measure, test and formulate suppositions or proposed explanations made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.

The conclusions that are reached are purely reached by humans or aided by machines created by humans.

Humans conclude and make conclusions.

Would it be correct to say all humans are imperfect, prone to bias and mistakes, so the scientific method will be colored by bias and mistakes?

Cheers and i look forward to our discussion.

Ophiolite · Jun 26, 2019

the iconoclast said:
What is an example that can not be known or even knowlable in relation to truth?

I take it you are attempting to be humorous (?), sarcastic (?), ironic (?).

the iconoclast said:
I believe humans are cleaver and some can be crafty. Humans can get things wrong but they can also get things right.

But we require an independent process to determine which is which and science is that process.

Aside: the cleaver humans would be ideal for cutting the Gordian knot.

the iconoclast said:
Would it be correct to say all humans are imperfect, prone to bias and mistakes, so the scientific method will be colored by bias and mistakes?

No. That is equivalent to saying "If we take impure water boil it and condense it, through three cycles, the water will still be impure because all the actions were carried out by humans."

the iconoclast · Jun 27, 2019

Ophiolite said:
I take it you are attempting to be humorous

Hey hey friend

- whoops, this is a serious topic so just pre

Heads up. I wasnt trying to cause laughter or amusement

Ophiolite said:
sarcastic (?),

Dont fear my dear, i wasnt trying to convey contempt.

Ophiolite said:
ironic (?).

Nothing so mundane. There was no expression of meaning by using language that normally signifies the opposite, typically for humorous or emphatic effect.

@Shemjaza said to me that he "take(s) as an axiom that there is a truth to the universe".

I want to be on the same page so i asked him to convey what he meant by truth to the universe. I shall wait for him to explain what was meant, unless do you speak for him?

Ophiolite said:
But we require an independent process to determine which is which and science is that process.

Interesting, I think i can learn alot from you. Please excuse my curiosity, i would love to know what you know.

How is science an independent process?

Ophiolite said:
Aside: the cleaver humans would be ideal for cutting the Gordian knot.

If someone figured out how to make the knot surely someone could figure out how to loosen it. No need to cut it thats not challenging, Alexander loosed the knot by just pulling the linchpin from the yoke.

Ophiolite said:
No. That is equivalent to saying "If we take impure water boil it and condense it, through three cycles, the water will still be impure because all the actions were carried out by humans."

I disagree my new delicious friend

Check this out ;p

I said the following "Would it be correct to say all humans are imperfect, prone to bias and mistakes, so the scientific method will be colored by bias and mistakes?"

I also said the following "I believe humans are cleaver and some can be crafty. Humans can get things wrong but they can also get things right."

Science is the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

The scientific method is the procedure.

(.eg a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.)

Humans discovered through observation, experiment and testing that if they were to boil water to a degree, the water would purify.

They discovered what these impurities were and formulated the method to purify - recently when we consider human civilization.

This is one of many - and i mean MANY - discoveries that intelligent humans eventually figured out since the creation of man.

So im not debating the result of someone boiling water and i appreciate the 1000s of years of human advancement. I dont disagree with a tried, tested and true result.

And surprise i live in 2019, im aware of how things have progressed due to people who were determined to get an answer.

So again, Im not debating a tried and tested result. @Shemjaza has made a statement that "All humans are imperfect, prone to bias and mistakes, so their methods of approaching the truth will be coloured by this".

I was not arguing whether water boiled 3 times makes water impure. Im in the creation and evolution section you know where i want the conversation to go.

So if we apply shems statement to the scientific method ie consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

Then does that mean that science - which is the conclusions of men reasoning with facts - is colored by bias and mistakes?

Cheers

Ps
Your previous response is misrepresentation and distracting but i think things will get better as you and become familiar. Lets reason together hun!

Gottservant · Jun 29, 2019

What about a semi-mutational string of DNA? How does Evolution affect that?

Ophiolite · Jun 29, 2019

the iconoclast said:
I want to be on the same page so i asked him to convey what he meant by truth to the universe. I shall wait for him to explain what was meant, unless do you speak for him?

No, you asked him to provide "an example that can not be known or even knowable in relation to truth?"
Do I really need to point out that if something cannot be known then Shemjaza will be unable to provide an example of it?
Perhaps if you spoke clearly and directly, instead of the affected hillbilly, cutesy waffle you favour, you wouldn't make such self contradictory remarks.

the iconoclast said:
How is science an independent process?

It is governed by clear, objective rules.

the iconoclast said:
If someone figured out how to make the knot surely someone could figure out how to loosen it. No need to cut it thats not challenging, Alexander loosed the knot by just pulling the linchpin from the yoke.

That is not the preferred variant of the story. Anyway, my introduction of the knot was to highlight your idiosyncratic spelling of clever, as "cleaver".

the iconoclast said:
I disagree my new delicious friend

I am not your friend. Please cease the folksy charm. It isn't charming.

the iconoclast said:
Then does that mean that science - which is the conclusions of men reasoning with facts - is colored by bias and mistakes?

No. It does not, since the constraints of the scientific method impart objectivity and independence.

the iconoclast · Jun 30, 2019

Ophiolite said:
No, you asked him to provide "an example that can not be known or even knowable in relation to truth?"

Hey hey

I did ask @Shemjaza to supply an example of something he considers unknown or unknowable. He has lost motivation to have a discussion and he was very motivated in the past.

What happened shem?

So, to assume something is unknowable, something must be unknown. So what would be an example of something unknown - or is that in itself unknowable ie what can be considered unknown?

Ophiolite said:
Do I really need to point out that if something cannot be known then Shemjaza will be unable to provide an example of it?

So @Shemjaza does not know what is unknown, so therefore he cannot provide an example of what he considers as unknowable?

Ophiolite said:
Perhaps if you spoke clearly and directly, instead of the affected hillbilly, cutesy waffle you favour, you wouldn't make such self contradictory remarks.

Please excuse me friend

Usually hillbilly is not a compliment and a form of insult.

Why do you feel like you need to insult me? Usually this type of behaviour has a reason, is everything ok with you?

Ophiolite said:
It is governed by clear, objective rules.

Science is an independent process because it is governed by clear and objective rules. What are these rules and how do these rules make science independent?

Ophiolite said:
That is not the preferred variant of the story. Anyway, my introduction of the knot was to highlight your idiosyncratic spelling of clever, as "cleaver".

Fair enough. I will now go out of my way to point out any spelling mistakes you make or grammatical errors. We will help each other out in this way, you better spell check.

Ophiolite said:
I am not your friend. Please cease the folksy charm. It isn't charming.

Please excuse me my dear. You are not my friend and im not charming.

Ophiolite said:
No. It does not, since the constraints of the scientific method impart objectivity and independence.

How does human measurement, human observation and human testing - constraints - impart objectivity and independence?

Lets get into it and dont be shy.

Cheers

Ophiolite · Jul 1, 2019

the iconoclast said:
Hey hey

I did ask @Shemjaza to supply an example of something he considers unknown or unknowable. He has lost motivation to have a discussion and he was very motivated in the past.

What happened shem?

So, to assume something is unknowable, something must be unknown. So what would be an example of something unknown - or is that in itself unknowable ie what can be considered unknown?

So @Shemjaza does not know what is unknown, so therefore he cannot provide an example of what he considers as unknowable?

I do not know what to make of the fact that you do not appear to grasp the significance of the meaning of unknown and unknowable. There is nothing productive to be gained from exploring that aberration any further.

the iconoclast said:
Please excuse me friend

Usually hillbilly is not a compliment and a form of insult.

Why do you feel like you need to insult me? Usually this type of behaviour has a reason, is everything ok with you?

In all your posts you adopt an unjustified familiarity and an affected country-boy style. That is not conducive to a productive, civil dialogue, but it is certainly discourteous. If you feel offended by having this pointed out then stop posting in that manner.

I have asked you both implicitly and explicitly to stop addressing me as "hun" and "friend". I am not your friend and it is presumptuous and rude of you to address me as if I were. At present you are also not my enemy, but you are sailing very close to the wind. Please desist.

the iconoclast said:
Science is an independent process because it is governed by clear and objective rules. What are these rules and how do these rules make science independent?

How does human measurement, human observation and human testing - constraints - impart objectivity and independence?

There are a plethora of "rules" and approaches, but key words include objectivity, measurement, precision, accuracy, validation, repetition, peer review, hypothesis formation, testing, experiment, observation. It is the sum total of these and more besides that progressively eliminates the effects of human error and prejudice.

the iconoclast said:
Fair enough. I will now go out of my way to point out any spelling mistakes you make or grammatical errors. We will help each other out in this way, you better spell check.

I can laugh at myself. I was giving you the opportunity, via "cleaver", to do the same. Reluctance duly noted.
All errorr notifacation greatfully recieved. (See what I did there?)

Shemjaza · Jul 1, 2019

Sorry for the delay. Life got in the way of spending the time I like to read thought posts and think about a response.

the iconoclast said:
Hey hey and thank you for your reply. how r things in the land down under?

What do you mean by there is truth to the universe? What truth do you refer to?

I mean truth as facts that are independent of all opinion and judgement.

the iconoclast said:
What is an example that can not be known or even knowlable in relation to truth?

Something that I believe is true, but is unknown or unknowable would be the precise number of grains of sand on the surface of Mars.

Something else which might be literally impossible to discover, but I suspect has a factual description is the actual beginning of time and space.

the iconoclast said:
I believe humans are cleaver and some can be crafty. Humans can get things wrong but they can also get things right.

I agree, which is why I don't discount the efforts of humans as a possible way to approach the truth.

the iconoclast said:
Science is the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

The scientific method is the procedure.

(.eg a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.)

Humans are the ones who reason with facts.

Humans are the ones who observe, measure, test and formulate suppositions or proposed explanations made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.

The conclusions that are reached are purely reached by humans or aided by machines created by humans.

Humans conclude and make conclusions.

Would it be correct to say all humans are imperfect, prone to bias and mistakes, so the scientific method will be colored by bias and mistakes?

That is all reasonable, but I think it misses the aspect of science that leads to precision and repeat-ability meaning that multiple humans can understand, analyse and test a particular result and hopefully reduce the bias of individuals.

We still have to deal with wider scale sources of error, but my point wasn't the perfection or infallibility of science, but that it is the best system I've seen proposed.

the iconoclast said:
Cheers and i look forward to our discussion.

(I do apologise for the delay).

the iconoclast · Jul 2, 2019

Ophiolite said:
I do not know what to make of the fact that you do not appear to grasp the significance of the meaning of unknown and unknowable.

Hey hey ophiolite

Well @Shemjaza seemed to grasp my question as he replied yesterday and he was civil, and polite in his response.

Well lets check out the definitions.

Unknown - not known or familiar.
"exploration into unknown territory"
So a territory is unknown until its known.

Known - recognized, familiar or within the scope of knowledge.

Unknowable - not able to be known.
"the total cost is unknowable".

Do i get an A?

Lets look at unknown and unknowable in relation to truth. You are smarter than me, could you please explain where im getting things wrong?

Ophiolite said:
There is nothing productive to be gained from exploring that aberration any further.

I agree as the issue seems to be with you and not with @Shemjaza or myself.

Ophiolite said:
In all your posts you adopt an unjustified familiarity and an affected country-boy style.

Would you like me to justify my familiarity?

Ahhh.... country boy and not hillbilly. Nice save!

Heads up i live in a city but i do yearn for pastures of green and corn cobs. Im wanna bail me sum hay yall!!!

Ophiolite said:
That is not conducive to a productive, civil dialogue,

Please excuse the way that iam. I like bit pizzazz and familiarity, no need to be po-faced. This is all fun to me and i enjoy discussing things, why cant i be who i am?

Ophiolite said:
but it is certainly discourteous.

Please excuse me. This was not my intention.

I have not been rude and am asking questions about what you say to show interest. If anything you have been discourteous - hillbilly remark and showing no interest in taking me seriously.

Ophiolite said:
If you feel offended by having this pointed out then stop posting in that manner.

I would like an apology for the hillbilly remark but other than that, not offended. If you do not like the way i do things then i suggest you take your own advise and not reply... but i know you cannot resist so the conversation will continue.

Ophiolite said:
I have asked you both implicitly and explicitly to stop addressing me as "hun" and "friend".

I will not refer to you as hun or friend in the future. How about buddy, pal, chum, fella or maybe brother?

Ophiolite said:
I am not your friend and it is presumptuous and rude of you to address me as if I were.

Now who is being discourteous!

Ophiolite said:
At present you are also not my enemy, but you are sailing very close to the wind. Please desist.

I will desist sailing closer to the wind. Port side!!!

Enemy or friend thank you for telling me about your feelings and I hope you feel better.

Now i know how you feel about me, please allow me to tell you what my impression of you is.

You seem rude, upset and angry. Now we know how we feel about each other, anyways lets get back into it now.

Ophiolite said:
There are a plethora of "rules" and approaches,

Well dont hold back, a plethora suggests alot. What are these rules and how does it make science independent.

And no you have not addressed the question and proved what you said or else i wouldnt be asking.

Ophiolite said:
but key words include objectivity, measurement, precision, accuracy, validation, repetition, peer review, hypothesis formation, testing, experiment, observation.

Yep so you just repeated the scientific method to me. Humans measure, they validate, they try and be as precise as you can get, they repeat to see if you get a same result, humans observe.

These procedures have already been mentioned. Your statement about the rules which make science independent were not addressed?

Ophiolite said:
It is the sum total of these and more besides that progressively eliminates the effects of human error and prejudice.

How does this sum total of procedures eliminate human error?

Ophiolite said:
I can laugh at myself. I was giving you the opportunity, via "cleaver", to do the same.

Fair enough.

Ophiolite said:
Reluctance duly noted.

Cool.

Ophiolite said:
All errorr notifacation greatfully recieved. (See what I did there?)

Not really but this is a serious topic, i shall pretend you didnt - sound familiar?

Cheers

the iconoclast · Jul 2, 2019

Shemjaza said:
Sorry for the delay. Life got in the way of spending the time I like to read thought posts and think about a response.

Hey hey shem

Thank you for acknowledging me and all good. I too like to reflect and make sure things are read through.

Shemjaza said:
I mean truth as facts that are independent of all opinion and judgement.

Ahh so you mean there is an axiom of truth to the universe independent of opinion and judgement?

Would personal experiences be void of judgement or opinion? How would you validate a personal experience to me and are personal experiences a truth?

Shemjaza said:
Something that I believe is true, but is unknown or unknowable would be the precise number of grains of sand on the surface of Mars.

Would the volume of water on earth be another unknowable truth?

Would queen Elizabeth be a truth that is unknowable?

Please let me explain. The queen exists but she is unknowable to you and i?

Shemjaza said:
Something else which might be literally impossible to discover, but I suspect has a factual description is the actual beginning of time and space.

What do you mean here? Would you be so kind as to elaborate the relationship between time/space and unknown?

Shemjaza said:
I agree, which is why I don't discount the efforts of humans as a possible way to approach the truth.

Humans can get things right but they can also get things wrong. I dont discount the efforts of humans either, some of us are very honest and are not into deception.

Shemjaza said:
That is all reasonable, but I think it misses the aspect of science that leads to precision and repeat-ability meaning that multiple humans can understand, analyse and test a particular result and hopefully reduce the bias of individuals.

Fair enough. Heads up i do not disagree with tried, tested and true results either.

Lets get into. What is an example of a precise and repeatable proof for evolution?

Check out this quote by my dear friend bugs. Hey @Bugeyedcreepy where r u?

Bugeyedcreepy said:
we can see things that weren't there, we can remember things incorrectly, we can be fooled and are prone to misunderstanding things we witness first hand.

What do you think about this comment?

Shemjaza said:
We still have to deal with wider scale sources of error, but my point wasn't the perfection or infallibility of science, but that it is the best system I've seen proposed.

Lets say that i make a statement "there is a God". I could be wrong or right but we dont want our conclusion based on opinion and uninformed judgement.

Would you use the scientific method on God? How do you disprove God?

Shemjaza said:
(I do apologise for the delay).

It is all good and thank you for such a polite and civil discussion. I think i like you

Ps

I never got a chance to reply back to our clinate change discussion. I have recorded your reply, would you like to continue?

Cheers

Ophiolite · Jul 2, 2019

the iconoclast said:
Hey hey ophiolite

Well @Shemjaza seemed to grasp my question as he replied yesterday and he was civil, and polite in his response.

Well lets check out the definitions.

Unknown - not known or familiar.
"exploration into unknown territory"
So a territory is unknown until its known.

Known - recognized, familiar or within the scope of knowledge.

Unknowable - not able to be known.
"the total cost is unknowable".

Do i get an A?

Lets look at unknown and unknowable in relation to truth. You are smarter than me, could you please explain where im getting things wrong?

I agree as the issue seems to be with you and not with @Shemjaza or myself.

Would you like me to justify my familiarity?

Ahhh.... country boy and not hillbilly. Nice save!

Heads up i live in a city but i do yearn for pastures of green and corn cobs. Im wanna bail me sum hay yall!!!

Please excuse the way that iam. I like bit pizzazz and familiarity, no need to be po-faced. This is all fun to me and i enjoy discussing things, why cant i be who i am?

Please excuse me. This was not my intention.

I have not been rude and am asking questions about what you say to show interest. If anything you have been discourteous - hillbilly remark and showing no interest in taking me seriously.

I would like an apology for the hillbilly remark but other than that, not offended. If you do not like the way i do things then i suggest you take your own advise and not reply... but i know you cannot resist so the conversation will continue.

I will not refer to you as hun or friend in the future. How about buddy, pal, chum, fella or maybe brother?

Now who is being discourteous!

I will desist sailing closer to the wind. Port side!!!

Enemy or friend thank you for telling me about your feelings and I hope you feel better.

Now i know how you feel about me, please allow me to tell you what my impression of you is.

You seem rude, upset and angry. Now we know how we feel about each other, anyways lets get back into it now.

Well dont hold back, a plethora suggests alot. What are these rules and how does it make science independent.

And no you have not addressed the question and proved what you said or else i wouldnt be asking.

Yep so you just repeated the scientific method to me. Humans measure, they validate, they try and be as precise as you can get, they repeat to see if you get a same result, humans observe.

These procedures have already been mentioned. Your statement about the rules which make science independent were not addressed?

How does this sum total of procedures eliminate human error?

Fair enough.

Cool.

Not really but this is a serious topic, i shall pretend you didnt - sound familiar?

Cheers

I didn't bother completing a read of your post. Your constant belittling of hillbillies in this and earlier posts tells me all I need to know.
Objective observations:
1. Your style is a pastiche of the alleged manner in which hillbillies speak.
2. I do not consider calling someone a hillbilly to be an insult.
3. I do consider it to be insulting when someone who is not a hillbilly deliberately and persistently affects that style in an inappropriate setting.

Finis.

the iconoclast · Jul 2, 2019

Ophiolite said:
I didn't bother completing a read of your post. Your constant belittling of hillbillies in this and earlier posts tells me all I need to know.
Objective observations:
1. Your style is a pastiche of the alleged manner in which hillbillies speak.
2. I do not consider calling someone a hillbilly to be an insult.
3. I do consider it to be insulting when someone who is not a hillbilly deliberately and persistently affects that style in an inappropriate setting.

Finis.

Hey hey

Whoops this is a serious conversation, just pretend i didnt say that.

Gratified as i am with the attention that you have paid to my humble posts - and person. It is my sad duty to inform you that what you have just said is extraneous and fell on deaf ears. However thank you for taking the time to express your sentiments and sharing your emotions with me.

I hope you feel better and desire nothing but good for you. I hope you slept well last night, as im sure this situation must have been weighing heavily on your mind.

Your opinion of my person is fascinating however im still no different from before i read your response or in any way repentant.

I remain sir your obedient servant (which by now you should know i am not)

I await your subsequent posts with pleasure and some impatience. This is not over!

I love you and au revoir

Shemjaza · Jul 3, 2019

the iconoclast said:
Ahh so you mean there is an axiom of truth to the universe independent of opinion and judgement?

That feels reasonable.

the iconoclast said:
Would personal experiences be void of judgement or opinion? How would you validate a personal experience to me and are personal experiences a truth?

Sort of. An experience that someone goes through is an objective fact, but the interpretation, meaning and even memory of it are not necessarily accurate.

the iconoclast said:
Would the volume of water on earth be another unknowable truth?

Would queen Elizabeth be a truth that is unknowable?

Please let me explain. The queen exists but she is unknowable to you and i?

The precise volume of ocean water and intimate details of a relationship with Queen Elisabeth might be unavailable to the two of us, but they are simple facts of measurement and experience that are possible to discover. (If impractical).

the iconoclast said:
What do you mean here? Would you be so kind as to elaborate the relationship between time/space and unknown?

While a serious effort of taking the Earth apart to count all the water or getting to know a famous English head of state are too difficult for us to actually do, they are physically possible.

When I talk about the beginning of space and time, I would not be surprised if it is literally impossible to discover the exact nature of those events.

Maybe no amount study and data found in the modern and future universe can reveal the details.

I was using it as an example of a factual event, that is true, but that no one now, and possibly no one ever can know the truth of.

the iconoclast said:
Humans can get things right but they can also get things wrong. I dont discount the efforts of humans either, some of us are very honest and are not into deception.

I agree.

the iconoclast said:
Fair enough. Heads up i do not disagree with tried, tested and true results either.

Lets get into. What is an example of a precise and repeatable proof for evolution?

The pattern of genetic relatedness of living creatures matching what we would expect if they were a giant branching family.

This is using the same technique developed for testing the paternity of human families.

This can be repeated and checked by separate people or groups and doesn't require presuppositions aside from the consistency of chemistry, biology and physics.

the iconoclast said:
Check out this quote by my dear friend bugs. Hey @Bugeyedcreepy where r u?

Bugeyedcreepy:
we can see things that weren't there, we can remember things incorrectly, we can be fooled and are prone to misunderstanding things we witness first hand.

What do you think about this comment?

Sounds like a reasonable quote. It's why independent verification is important.

the iconoclast said:
Lets say that i make a statement "there is a God". I could be wrong or right but we dont want our conclusion based on opinion and uninformed judgement.

Would you use the scientific method on God? How do you disprove God?

I think it is literally impossible to disprove anything that has omniscience and omnipotence as abilities.

However the obvious response is me asking why I should agree? If the only evidence I have access to is untestable I haven't been presented with any justification and I have no real reason to consider it.

the iconoclast said:
It is all good and thank you for such a polite and civil discussion. I think i like you

It's mostly the best way to get to what people actually believe and why. (That's why I post and read this forum).

the iconoclast said:
I never got a chance to reply back to our clinate change discussion. I have recorded your reply, would you like to continue?

Why not. I don't remember the details of that exchange.

Gottservant · Jul 5, 2019

I think basically, Evolutionist's "cause" is their 'god'.

Does that mean Evolutionists undertake a "good cause"? Hard to know.

That said, it is harder not to believe that Evolutionist or not, most people have at least donated to a cause, that they thought was good.

the iconoclast · Jul 5, 2019

Shemjaza said:
That feels reasonable.

Hey hey shem

Have you found any truth that is void of judgement and opinion?

Shemjaza said:
Sort of. An experience that someone goes through is an objective fact, but the interpretation, meaning and even memory of it are not necessarily accurate.

When can i be certain that if something happened to me i could interpret the situation correctly and fight against an inaccurate mind?

Shemjaza said:
The precise volume of ocean water and

So a truth which is unavailable rather than unknowable.

Shemjaza said:
intimate details of a relationship with Queen Elisabeth might be unavailable to the two of us,

An available truth.

Shemjaza said:
but they are simple facts of measurement and experience that are possible to discover. (If impractical).

Not an unknown truth but rather an unavailable and a unlikely to succeed or be effective in real circumstances, truth. So there is a truth its a matter of the possibility to discover.

Shemjaza said:
While a serious effort of taking the Earth apart to count all the water or getting to know a famous English head of state are too difficult for us to actually do, they are physically possible.

Excellent.

Shemjaza said:
When I talk about the beginning of space and time, I would not be surprised if it is literally impossible to discover the exact nature of those events.

Which events do you speak of in relation to time and space?

Shemjaza said:
Maybe no amount study and data found in the modern and future universe can reveal the details.

So something that cannot be discovered.

Shemjaza said:
I was using it as an example of a factual event, that is true, but that no one now, and possibly no one ever can know the truth of.

Ive been reading up on some of your history. I see you said that being on this site has turned you from an agnostic theist into an atheist.

What made you change from uncertainty to certainty?

Shemjaza said:
The pattern of genetic relatedness of living creatures matching what we would expect if they were a giant branching family.

Individuals who belong to the same family or the same population are related because of their shared ancestry?

Shemjaza said:
This is using the same technique developed for testing the paternity of human families.

Sounds cool.

Shemjaza said:
This can be repeated and checked by separate people or groups and doesn't require presuppositions aside from the consistency of chemistry, biology and physics.

How does this confirm evolution?

Shemjaza said:
Sounds like a reasonable quote. It's why independent verification is important.

How do i know the person who will verify said things is not prone to error as well?

Shemjaza said:
I think it is literally impossible to disprove anything that has omniscience and omnipotence as abilities.

You are an atheist so your position is confirmed. You have decided that God does not exist, how did you confirm this to yourself?

Shemjaza said:
However the obvious response is me asking why I should agree?
If the only evidence I have access to is untestable I haven't been presented with any justification and I have no real reason to consider it.

What have you done to test Christian faith and what is considered untested?

Shemjaza said:
It's mostly the best way to get to what people actually believe and why. (That's why I post and read this forum).

Fair enough.

Shemjaza said:
Why not. I don't remember the details of that exchange.

Excellant. I posted a link to you weeks ago about the wiki leak hacks into certain climate change emails. Are you familiar with this subject?

Cheers you

Shemjaza · Jul 6, 2019

the iconoclast said:
Have you found any truth that is void of judgement and opinion?

Obviously not. The concept of that kind of truth is that it exists regardless of whether I find it.

the iconoclast said:
When can i be certain that if something happened to me i could interpret the situation correctly and fight against an inaccurate mind?

You can't be totally certain, all you've got are human senses to detect and a human mind to interpret.

the iconoclast said:
So a truth which is unavailable rather than unknowable.

An available truth.

Not an unknown truth but rather an unavailable and a unlikely to succeed or be effective in real circumstances, truth. So there is a truth its a matter of the possibility to discover.

Excellent.

I'm not sure what you point here is.

the iconoclast said:
Which events do you speak of in relation to time and space?

I was considering the actual beginning of space and time.

the iconoclast said:
So something that cannot be discovered.

Seems like a reasonable possibility.

the iconoclast said:
Ive been reading up on some of your history. I see you said that being on this site has turned you from an agnostic theist into an atheist.

What made you change from uncertainty to certainty?

I'm not certain. I just analysed my beliefs and found that I didn't have good reason to hold them and abandoned them.

the iconoclast said:
Individuals who belong to the same family or the same population are related because of their shared ancestry?

Yes.

the iconoclast said:
Sounds cool.

How does this confirm evolution?

The genetic patterns we can demonstrate to be created by mutations and reproductions branching create a tree structure as they continue.

If we conjecture that the similarities and differences of life are due to being related and having developed and diverged from common ancestors there would be a particular kind of genetic pattern in the existing life forms. There is, so it makes an excellent conformation of the theory of evolution.

the iconoclast said:
How do i know the person who will verify said things is not prone to error as well?

They are also prone to error. But independent repetition should reduce the scale of the error.

the iconoclast said:
You are an atheist so your position is confirmed. You have decided that God does not exist, how did you confirm this to yourself?

I think atheism is probably impossible to confirm.

My atheism is merely that I haven't been presented by any convincing reasons to assume the existence of God in particular, and the entire supernatural realm in general.

the iconoclast said:
What have you done to test Christian faith and what is considered untested?

I was a Christian as a child and believed, prayed and attempted to live to the standards of my faith. I never received any confirmation of my belief and eventually abandoned it.

If Evolution is true, aren't parasites to Evolution inevitable?

God loves your words, may men love them also

Regular Member

Atheism is weak. Yep, I said it

Regular Member

Atheism is weak. Yep, I said it

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape

Atheism is weak. Yep, I said it

God loves your words, may men love them also

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape

Atheism is weak. Yep, I said it

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape

Regular Member

Atheism is weak. Yep, I said it

Atheism is weak. Yep, I said it

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape

Atheism is weak. Yep, I said it

Regular Member

God loves your words, may men love them also

Atheism is weak. Yep, I said it

Regular Member

Similar threads