Quote (TiStuff @ May 12 2023 09:38am)
and if you liked what he said you would be falling all over yourself agreeing with him.
I dont agree with him, because I think common descent is a well backed up theory.
HOWEVER its a theory and not a fact, so you can of course disagree with it. What I didnt like about your wording was that he is *dismissing* it. Its not very scientific for him to dismiss as theory, because you would have to disproof a theory in order to dismiss it.
If he has another theory, thats fine. He probably has another way to describe this stage of evolution otherwise he wouldnt have worded it like that.
Anyways, yeah I disagree with him but I accept that anyone is free to not accept theories as facts, you can and should always doubt them and if you come up with a better theory feel free to share it.
Quote (TiStuff @ May 12 2023 09:38)
and monkeys are "ape like"
so your saying that through selective breeding we could get a human from a monkey?
since you misrepresenting the quote i will just repost it
"Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.
It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated.
Moreover, that materialism is absolute,for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.
richard lewontin
snake is a snake.............fantastic...
do you think there is reasoning behind the idea of "simulation hypothesis" or do you think some one just pulled it out of their azz?
claims of scripture can be tested. scripture claims it (construct/universe/creation) is a created place. claims life is created. the counter claim is all this stuff is just a product of some kind of naturalistic random accidental process.
after all of science endeavors life is still a complete mystery. this is a big problem for atheists/antitheists yet you just blow it off like its not a big deal and at the same time your going to tell me your the scientific one?
You can of course not crossbreed monkeys and humans because OBVIOUSLY a monkey or also an ape cannot have babies with humans. We are too different at that point. I hope I dont REALLY have to explain that to you, right? Thats the whole point of this. Do you understand what the sentence you mockingly repeat so often means? Because I dont think you do.
To that quote again: Would you have an example of scientific claims that are against common sense please? Because as I told you earlier, I do not know about any. Thats why I dont think thats a relevant quote.
Also, what struggle between science and the supernatural? There is no struggle. Science is operating within the natural world. Its like saying math is struggling with chinese. Its two completely different things with one of them has not even be proven to exist at all. Science has fundamentaly just nothing to do with the supernatural. So what struggle? Maybe you can explain it to me?
Yes I think there is a reason behind the simulation hypothesis, sure. The reason is curiosity. Its absolutely fascinating to think we could live in a simulation. Honestly, its not even that far from the god claim.
Those two are related in a way cause both are undebunkable by definition.
Theres is no way to debunk the simulation hypothesis and also no way to verify it if it would be true since we would be in it.
Same goes for god. If god exist, there is no way to dismiss him or proof his existence.
The two could even be misinterpreted for the other. God could in a reality just be someone who programmed our simulation and someone who programmed our simulation could in reality be god. There is no way to distinguish.
So you see, i myself am a fan of it and find is fascinating, but at the same time both things, Simulation Hypothesis and God, are not an option for me, because of the impossibility to work with it scientifically speaking. Its out of our grasp, we cannot proof it, test it, verify it, debunk it - Thats why I am an atheist.
Being a theist doesnt lead anywhere. It is never the best explanation, because it is no explanation. I hope that brought some light into this discussion as a whole.
I am not against god or in favor of god. I hope I made that clear.
This post was edited by Modulok2405 on May 12 2023 03:46am