Quote (Modulok2405 @ May 12 2023 02:41am)
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.
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.
graig ventor denying common decent. he is an actual scientist working in a lab (his stuff is actually interesting check it out some time). he denies common decent and he is an atheist. his credential far outstrip your own.
nobody suggested crossbreeding monkeys or a ape having babies with a human
i am not putting in quotes because i am trying to reach you i think thats impossible your mind is locked and closed. quotes i post are just to expose you.
quote me where i mentioned a struggle between science and the supernatural
"Yes I think there is a reason behind the simulation hypothesis, sure. The reason is curiosity." you mean scientists just dreamed it up out of curiosity? is that what your saying?
but saying the cause was purely by accident is the best explanation? you understand living systems are built using a 'code a language, information. and it was an accident is the best explanation. seriously?
do you know who this guy is/was ? all is not well with the institution of science?
stephan j. gould
no myth deserves a more emphatic death than the idea that science is an inherently impartial and objective enterprise
yet it continues to thrive among working scientists because it serves us so well...."
Quote (addone @ May 12 2023 02:47am)
Snakes are not mythological beasts they are alive today even if many millions of years ago some had small feet. That's called evolution cope harder my illiterate NPC.
Ps TiStuff this guy SP00K doesn't believe in young earth. Claims he is a Christian why don't you talk some sense into that heretic.
snakes with legs are. many scoffers make fun of that scripture "snake cursed to crawl on its belly" until they see the fossil evidence. then other excuses ensue....endless endless excuses
there are good arguments for young earth. atmospheric c-14 is perhaps the most interesting. also time has its own oddities. its not fixed in a way thats consistent?
'time varies .........according to gravity. the universe is all different ages even though it/if it started at the same 'time
a truer statement? is the place/construct/universe/ is weird.
is the universe/construct infinite or finite?
if you spent more time processing data and less time arguing about things you dont 'believe