Hi, a couple points before I shoot off again.
Magnus looking at the planet it looks as if we're quite dominant to me. And our rise to dominance can only have been a result of our superior minds, it certainly wasn't our razor sharp teeth, speed or agility.
And again about the toe, where is the link between modern human, capable of our (even pre language) complex rationale and our ape ancestor?
Do you think that othe prrimates are incapable of communication just because they cannot speak? Or any animal for that matter? Speech alows for more complex communication than sub-vocalisations and body language alone to be sure, but ask any deaf or mute person how well they can express themselves with limited or no speech capability. It will take both science and a sound philosophy to guide it.
A place to start for information would be to google "primate communication". Its a fascinating subject when you get into it. The depth with which primates can communicate is really quite amazing.
For a start on the primate-human connection in evolution begin here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/
By the way I'd still fancy 6 or 7 lions over 20 apes with sticks, if they can take down buffalos I'm sure primitive apes wouldn't be a problem.
You really should take some time and examine primitve human societies and biology. The difference in cognitive ability between us and out earlier ancestors has more to do with the ability for abstraction than any thing else, the capacity for expounding on philsophy as we do here. Its a common misconception to assume that just because a people behave in what we term a primitive manner or in a primitive society, they are less intelligent. This is wrong. A human brain is the same wether it is born to a girl in New York, or a bushman in Sub Sahara Africa. The differences come from enviornment and experience.
6-7 lions would never attack an equal group of humans unless they were desperate for food. Lions are smart hunters. They prey on the weak and injuered before attacking the strong. Conservation of energy is the name of the game, predators seek the biggest reward for the smallest expenditure of energy. Because the more energy you expend, the more you have to eat. A human is a small snack when compared to a water buffalo, and just as dangerous. Unless the lions were starving, or felt cornered, they would simply move around.
But we don't combat these viruses physically for resources or space. Not the the same was as we combated other animals to rise to dominance.
Also opcode I can't say much more about it than this. I realise at 19 that most if not all theologies are not compatible with science. If on scientific grounds, or moral grounds (and let's assume for this point a level of morality that we can assume as a basis of a theology, I still cannot reconsile the TOE with this).
No, only theologies that overstep the bounds of philosophy are not compatible with science. When philsophy/theology stops focusing on the why and trys to answer the how is when we come into conflict. Philsophy cannot provide naturalistic explanations as to how soemthing works. It thus cannot provide evidence for its claims, and as such cannot be established as accurate, except in a subjective sense if we can agree on a philsophies princibles.
But then on scientific grounds, theology becomes obsolete. There is no reason ascribed to our being on scientific grounds, as you say it doesn't try to do that, but it becomes the case anyway.
This again shows a misunderstanding of science. Science makes no statement on philosophical issues. It is not capable of doing so. Such issues are beyond the natural world and are not part of science. The problem is that quite often those who follow such philosophies take a "You're either with us or against us attitude" and thus take a lack of comment on theology as rejection of theology.
The preponderence of scientists that are also devoutly religious exposes this as false.
So you appreciate surely the dilemma of someone like me who for whatever reason must put reason to our being. If I go the philosophy route, it is rendered obsolete by science and if I go the scientific route, any theology acceptable to me, or reasoning wouldn't fit anyway.
Or, you could go the route of completeness. Pursue both. Actually take the time to learn about science. Explore and understand what we already know about our universe and how it all connects. Discover the sense of wonder that science brings to its practitioners.
Often times religious believers such as yourself seem to think that science is cold and without heart. That we seek to break everything apart into its components so it can be understood and controlled.
The reality is that most scientists begin a career in science because they find it awe inspiriing. I wanted to become an astronomer not to make money or make some great discovery. It was because when I looked thru my backyard telescope, I was struck dumb by the sheer beauty of the universe that passed by my lens. It was this sense of wonder that keeps me retrurning to my telescope to this day, though my life ended up on a diffferent path.
So this is where I'm coming from. I understand the principles of the big bang, and the toe but to me neither are fact. There are just too many holes in both. And as I think you brought up before, that because of evidence discovered as recently as 15 (or so) years ago the theory of gravity seems incorrect, how can I accept the BB or TOE with many holes yet to be filled.
The big bang for example, seems to have so many rules invented just for it, for it to make scientific sense. Time and space never existed pre this event, so the question of what was before the big bang is obsolete. What? I've spoken to people well versed in science, about the big bang and even they would admit that when it comes down to it, it makes little rational sense, the implications it's truth brings about.
And so I'm back to my philosophy. Half of the time I don't even believe it. I just look at my garden, and see the coldness of what goes on. As I do ascribe our being to the creation of an entity, how doI reconsile the sheer brutality of nature with a good creator or even good in any way.
Or reconsile the reality that the most awful natures of our life can scientifically, because for example we know a lion can not survive on vegetation, be changed?
Btw I do realise I'm asking the questions of life, the universe and everything, not the easiest ones to throw out.
But as a final point, my philosophy is a way of reconsiling these points in a way morally acceptable to me. I understand through it why the brutality of nature, and why the hurricane killed a thousand men, and how we can change it.
You shouldn't think I'm blinkered though. I know there are many phenomina which are hard to explain scientifically or through theology, like the spontaneous formation and then dissapearance of twin cells(?) in space where there is no atmosphere for them, or dark matter.
Also, to empirical on the question of wether the knowledge we have attained would still be true. This is an interesting concept. Forget all of our language, and knowledge, if a cat sees what we have described as two boxes, one large one small, to the cat although they do not look the same there is no concept of big or small, or shape to define them by. It is only because of our brains that these definitions become important. Who's to say that they are still big and small, if there is literally no conscious able to interpret what those concepts are?
In the same way, that a concept way beyond our bounds is not even thought of. Therefore it's existence isn't doubted, it's never been ackowledged or considered. We may be seeing like the cat, truth's that we cannot comprehend. Isn't that an amazing thought? Science is also incredible, mind boggling don't get me wrong.
Also I still have to say that there is an occurrence which goes on every day which I've brought up a couple times, which science isn't about to comprehend. As I say, non existence, Science describes what it is that our brain's cease functioning and as such we are no longer conscious of anything in the same way as we were pre birth. But then, this is a concept for which we have no comparison to. We have nothing with which to understand the reality of this individually. How do you understand that you will after death have no conscious. And yet when an animal or person dies that we can see, this non existence becomes reality for that person or animal.
You see bad things in the world, but instead of asking how do we fix them, you ask why does the universe allow them to happen. You are projecting the responsibility for these events away from those that cause them, and onto the universe in order to buffer yourself from the truth.
The turth is that the universe in the end does not exhibit the order and balance that one would expect if there was a conscious entity behind the scences. The truth is the universe moves along very much as if no one was behind the scenes. A frightening thought at times. It is a comfort to think that there is some universal pupose to it all. That there is a reason why bad things have to happen at times. But the reality is that there is no justification for such a belief other than personal desire.
The universe IS an uncaring place. We do not matter in the grand scheme of things because there is no grand sceme of things. We simply are. And it is up to us, and us alone, to guide and shape our future place in this wonderous universe.
Only we can fix our problems. Humanity is growing up. We are at the threshold of taking full responsiblity for ourselves instead of trying to push it off to an invisible father figure. If we can survive the coming years, if we can find a way to work and live together as a planet, we will begin to take the steps needed to move on from our single small world, to step out into the universe and begin to really learn just what is out there.
So I say to you, do not toss aside science because you dislike the reality it has shown us. If you truely want to affect change in this world, you must do so by utilizing this world. You cannot wish away our problems no matter how badly you want to. It will take actual work to do so, not just thinking.