|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,908 Year: 4,165/9,624 Month: 1,036/974 Week: 363/286 Day: 6/13 Hour: 1/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Junior Member (Idle past 3496 days) Posts: 28 From: Australia Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Are we all descendants of Adam and Eve? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2136 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
My next question to any creationists was' how do you account for the different races of humans on the planet?'. Races are easy! They are created by a mixture of geographic factors and descent groups. There are lots of books giving the details. And races have nothing to do with old tribal myths.Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2136 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
What is your evidence that you know that no first man ever existed ? Can you point to one of the fossil finds and say that is the first? How do you deal with the gradual transitions between one species and the next? It is like the colors of the rainbow--it is very difficult to say where one color ends and the next begins. Unless you're going on pure belief, then no evidence is needed.Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2136 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
But you do not know for a scientific fact that there was not first human being. Do you know what a clinal distribution is? Have you any reason to believe that you can pick a single point on a cline and declare that "This is the first!"?Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2136 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Having been a statistical programmer, I remember what distributions, means, averages, standard deviations, degrees of error, etc. Is that what you mean? This is an example of a clinal distribution:
Given this type of a distribution, how is one to select the single point that represents the end of one type and the beginning of another? Or, in dealing with the human situation, how is one to select when the first human was born? Is no speciation characterized by a clinal distribution among many traits within a population?Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2136 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
And please do not try to impress me that scientists do not have things they prefer to believe, things they want to be true, agendas, need for popularity and acceptance and respectability and funding. You are confusing two vastly different things: science and scientists. Science doesn't accept something just because some scientist claims it. Remember back to cold fusion? The claim was made and several other laboratories immediately tried to replicate the results--they didn't just take someone's word for it. There is quite a system of checks and balances in modern science. While some scientists can be fooled, or fool themselves, that doesn't last long as other scientists are always testing and attempting to falsify existing theories. There is no quicker way for a graduate student to become famous than overturning some long-held and cherished theory.
I expect science theories to evolve and change and come and go. So do scientists. That's the way things work in science. Note that this is the opposite of the way religion works. In science if there is a disagreement scientists look to the evidence to see which side is more correct. Evidence trumps what "they want to be true, agendas, need for popularity and acceptance and respectability and funding." In religion if there is a disagreement there is more likely to be a schism, leading to two different denominations or sects. Belief trumps evidence.Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2136 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
Why not cut to the chase and present your proof that Adam the first man never existed? That is proof with mathematical precision. You want proof of a negative? And mathematical precision on something that is not mathematical? Why not wish for $6 million dollars and a Lear jet?Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2136 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
I think you could benefit from an anthropology course in comparative religions.
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2136 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
I think you could benefit from an anthropology course in comparative religions. That would be good. I barely have enough time though, to explore the exhaustless mine of the "unsearchable riches of Christ" in my Bible. Perhaps you wouldn't learn anything after all.
But I have been doing some reading today on ring species and what IS species anyway. Seems not easy to nail down definitely. No, it is not. But speciation can be observed in ring species in that each group along the ring can interbreed with its neighbors, but the far ends of the "horseshoe," where they back come into contact, do not freely interbreed in nature. That is not to say they can't be forced to interbreed in unnatural conditions, but they do not freely interbreed in nature. I think this is a good illustration of speciation. The same differences that we see in ring species because of geographic distance and isolation are what also occur with temporal separation.
So you think becomming a human was so very gradual that there could not have been #1 man and # 1 woman ? Evolution occurs within populations, and generally with a clinal distribution. That is, a population changes gradually over time. Like a ring species, it is possible to see the changes when one looks at distantly separate individuals, but not so easy to see changes of adjacent individuals.
On one hand I am scolded that through observation we learn that all the humans we know came about from wombs. It puzzles me why the same consistency is not applied to the observed history that they all came from human wombs. See my previous response, above. You want to say that there was a single first man and woman because the bible says so, and because of that you are willing to ignore what the real world evidence shows. How much evidence are you willing to deny to do so?Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2136 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
What science experiment would you invent to prove that only the scientific method can lead us to know truth ? How would you use science to prove that science is the only way we can know truth ? How would you do so without circular reasoning ? I would look at results. In the past few hundred years the explanations provided by religion have not produced accurate results, while the explanations provided by science have led to ever more accurate results. Just look at a list of the things once explained as the result of deities that are now better explained on the basis of natural causes. And just look at some of the claims made by religions that have been shown to be incorrect. Two of the biggest goofs are a young earth and the global flood ca. 4,350 years ago. And I would not be looking for "truth," whatever that is: Truth: This is a word best avoided entirely in physics [and science] except when placed in quotes, or with careful qualification. Its colloquial use has so many shades of meaning from ‘it seems to be correct’ to the absolute truths claimed by religion, that it’s use causes nothing but misunderstanding. Someone once said "Science seeks proximate (approximate) truths." Others speak of provisional or tentative truths. Certainly science claims no final or absolute truths. Source And the results would be judged against real-world evidence. You also note:
Three hundred years ago you might have said "HOW Much evidence are you going to deny ?" when it was commonly believed that maggots arose spontaneously from dead organisms ? I would suggest that our current explanation is more accurate than the previous one. If (WHEN!) there are further changes in the future, following the scientific method will give us still more accurate explanations. And how do we judge the accuracy of a scientific explanation (also known as a theory)? We test it against real-world evidence. To summarize, over the past few centuries the explanations provided by science have withstood the test against real-world evidence far better than the explanations provided by the 40,000+ worldwide religions, denominations, sects, etc.Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2136 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Regarding my quotation about truth in science. That's from a CalTech physics website. I added the phrase "or science" that appears in brackets. And yes, I think that statement is accurate (note: accure, not "truth," "Truth," or even "TRVTH".
That quotation says, in part, "Its colloquial use has so many shades of meaning from ‘it seems to be correct’ to the absolute truths claimed by religion, that it’s use causes nothing but misunderstanding." I think the claims made by religious groups that they each have the "truth" (all 40,000+ religions, denominations, sects, etc.) are sufficient to cast doubt on all of them.
Think of the great discoveries which were pioneered by theists who thought of God as a designer of the universe - Makes no difference. A similar list of great discoveries by atheists could be found. I note that your list includes Galileo. Regarding his heliocentric views, you should mention that he was ordered by the Inquisition as follows:
The Inquisition writes: to abstain completely from teaching or defending this doctrine and opinion or from discussing it... to abandon completely... the opinion that the sun stands still at the center of the world and the earth moves, and henceforth not to hold, teach, or defend it in any way whatever, either orally or in writing." Galileo was sentenced to house arrest for the rest of his life! At that he fared far better than Giordano Bruno, who just a few years earlier was burned at the stake for the same views. I don't know how Copernicus got away with his heliocentric discoveries in the first place--must have had a better lawyer or something. In summary of your list, I suggest that a lot of the great discoveries by theists were made when they ignored the church more so than when they followed it.
And I did not see in your response anything that negates that the scientific method rests on beliefs which cannot themselves be proved BY the scientific method. If you were more familiar with the scientific method you would know that science does not deal in "proof" any more than it deals in "truth." Science seeks the best explanations it can find for the real world, and it bases those explanations on real world evidence. If something is claimed that is outside of the real world, science does not address it because there is no evidence against which those claims can be judged. If you claim there are pink unicorns around, what instrument or other method can scientists use to evaluate that claim? And there is where you can contribute: provide evidence that others can judge for the claims you make.Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2136 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
I notice Darwin constantly refers to native peoples as "savages". "Savage" is a cultural condition, not a race.Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024