If Darwin was correct

[Mordoch]

Originally posted by Xin Yu
I saw repeated argument of: 'you don't know sh*t about the evolution theory so don't criticize it.'

Is that a valid argument? I mean, can we apply it to other topics: Have you studied the theory of communism? Do you fully understand how slavery works? You don't? Then until you do, communism is the correct system and slavery is superior than paying salaries to workers.

Actually you just reinforced the original point. I've seen people bashing evolution who had no clue that it doesn't address abiogenesis, and somehow though it directly addressed the creation of the universe.

Communism is actually an area where a lack of knowledge does invalidate criticism. If all you know about about Communism is "its bad" you're really not equipped to criticize it. On the other hand, if you're well aquainted with Marxist theory and its modern variations as well as how Communism has worked when it has been attempted to be applied in practice to this point, you have a solid basis to criticize it.

Slavery may be obviously bad, but if literally know nothing about it other than its bad, you really couldn't criticize it with confidence. The real test if whether you can explain to others effectively why something is bad or flawed, if you can't do so effectively you can't really say if you're right about an issue until you learn more about it.

If you're going to argue a scientific theory is incorrect, you need to throughly understand if first. Otherwise what you might think is an obvious flaw in the theory may just be your own flawed understanding of it. There a very large number of creationist supporters out there who don't even understand correctly what the theory of evolution attempts to cover.

[DaShi]

This thread is hilarious.

[Xin Yu]

Originally posted by DaShi
This thread is hilarious.

I was laughing all the time when reading and posting. Yet I suspected that some people were serious, which made me feel guilty .

This is not the first time I play '1 on several' on a public forum. I really appreciate that people here are mostly polite and civilized. Civ players are compare to everquest players who are sometimes way too nasty, almost like dogs biting .

[beingofone]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


You don't need to know how something works before you use it. Do you know how your car works? What about your computer? The Internet? Your television? Nevertheless, such lack of knowledge do not prevent you from using them.

Do you know how your body digest food? Do you know how your body breaks down food to produce energy? Yet you eat and breathe nevertheless.

Exactly, I hope you carry this thought to its complete conclusion.

1. An integer does not mean any number.
2. Define "complete entity."

1.
Main Entry: in·te·ger
Pronunciation: 'in-ti-j&r
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin, adjective, whole, entire —more at ENTIRE
Date: 1571
1 : any of the natural numbers, the negatives of these numbers, or zero
2 : a complete entity

© 2001 by Merriam-Webster

2.
complete - to make whole or perfect
entity - something that has being or existence


Whaleboy

I think you're retreating somewhere tha only those who have faith can follow, you need to establish these notions to proceed and thus far you haven't.

I agree and you are of course right. It does take faith that my existence has meaning.
Just how much is really up to you.

You do know how singularities work right? Cogito ergo sum -> solisism only works when using solely deductive reasoning, you can induce the existence of others, hence the debate between rationalism and empiricism, but that one might choose empiricism does not render cogito ergo sum false.

I am aware as you said with the word "solecism" that I am introducing an idea that is off the beaten track.
Or did you mean I am just rude LOL .
Yes I know that singularities exist ( I don`t know what you mean buy "work").
As much as you might want empirical science to have objective merit. It is always subjected to your subjective interpretation. Therefore it has the merit that you attribute to it.
Ergo singularity of consciousness is the final definition of all existence.

[beingofone]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


Yes. My body, for starters.

Who and what is aware of your body?

I know Lao Tzu did not say anything like that. Gautama did not say that either. Where in the bible does it mention that Jesus said something like that?

Just about every page in the New Testament, Book of Tao, and the Dharma.

You are mistaken.

Perhaps you could recomend a biography I have not read of this man.
I have to admit I have read only five.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Xin Yu


I was laughing all the time when reading and posting. Yet I suspected that some people were serious, which made me feel guilty .

This is not the first time I play '1 on several' on a public forum. I really appreciate that people here are mostly polite and civilized. Civ players are compare to everquest players who are sometimes way too nasty, almost like dogs biting .

Who drew the short stab?

[beingofone]

Originally posted by BlackCat


Further, there could be people dissatisfied with the current situation, and what would be more natural for them than to invent a religious story that expressed their belief in how society should be organized. They would certainly been full aware of the powers if they claimed that it was the words of a god, so it's absolutely reasonable that they build a scheme to promote their social beliefs upon this.

If a religion has political aspirations - it should be treated as suspect. " Love thy neighbor as thyself" is inherently apolitical.

The bottom line is that despite many claims, nobody really knows what is the real words of god; noone knows which god is the real; and noone knows if god really exist.

1- Words are a symbol of reality, like money is to true wealth. You cannot eat money.
2- The real God is the one that allows me to love myself. So that I am capable of loving my neighbor.
The real God will fill me with an overwhelming sense of belonging and wellbeing.
3- I exist and I am real and therefore God exists by his nature and definition.

God is talked about alot and rarely defined.
This is impossible to communicate with any semblance of possibility.
Any discussion must have a frame of reference. I find that conversations about God are meaningless unless there is a frame of reference or a (clear) definition of what is meant by "GOD".
After all, someones god may be a frog or a bearded old man in a red suite living at the North Pole.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by beingofone

If a religion has political aspirations - it should be treated as suspect. " Love thy neighbor as thyself" is inherently apolitical.

Back to the starting block with organized Christianity then. It seems to have been downhill all the way since the death of the first pagan and the first dissenting Christian at the hands of an organized church.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Xin Yu


But I think there is 'natual science' and 'social science'? And social science includes economics (and evolution theory)?

It's a matter of semantics and change of usage. When mediaeval scholars studied the liberal arts, they were studying astronomy, geometry and mathematics.

Really, an in depth study of the history of science is quite illuminating. As would be an in depth study of the theory of evolution, and its social and cultural context.

The trivium: grammar, dialectic and rhetoric.

The quadrivium: arithmetic, geometry,
astronomy and music.

[beingofone]

Originally posted by molly bloom


Back to the starting block with organized Christianity then. It seems to have been downhill all the way since the death of the first pagan and the first dissenting Christian at the hands of an organized church.

Could not agree more Molly.
I forget who said it but - " Dear Lord, protect me from thy followers, amen".

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by beingofone


Could not agree more Molly.
I forget who said it but - " Dear Lord, protect me from thy followers, amen".

Probably a gnostic Christian. Or an Arian, or a Pelagian, or a Monophysite, or a Nestorian, or a Mandaean....the list of possible victims is quite lengthy.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by beingofone
Exactly, I hope you carry this thought to its complete conclusion.

The conclusion is you don't need to know how your brain works to think. We humans have been doing that for ages.

Originally posted by beingofone
Main Entry: in·te·ger
Pronunciation: 'in-ti-j&r
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin, adjective, whole, entire —more at ENTIRE
Date: 1571
1 : any of the natural numbers, the negatives of these numbers, or zero
2 : a complete entity

An integer is a complete entity? I will wait for KH or BC to show up.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by beingofone
Who and what is aware of your body?

Irrelevant. I only need an counterexample to refute your assertion, which I duly provided.

Originally posted by beingofone
Just about every page in the New Testament, Book of Tao, and the Dharma.

You don't know what you are talking about. There is no "Book of Tao" or "Dharma."

Originally posted by beingofone
Perhaps you could recomend a biography I have not read of this man.
I have to admit I have read only five.

Splendid. Which ones are these?

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by beingofone


If a religion has political aspirations - it should be treated as suspect. " Love thy neighbor as thyself" is inherently apolitical.

It's easy to take one sentence out and claim "you are mistaken", but isn't it a fact that christianity was strongly opposed to the general rule and thereby political ?

1- Words are a symbol of reality, like money is to true wealth. You cannot eat money.

Nope. Words MAY be symbols of reality - just because someone has written something and claims it's gods words, it's not nessecary reality.

2- The real God is the one that allows me to love myself. So that I am capable of loving my neighbor.
The real God will fill me with an overwhelming sense of belonging and wellbeing.

You don't need a god to have it this way - actually I feel sorry for you if you can't have this without a godfigure.

3- I exist and I am real and therefore God exists by his nature and definition.

How do you know that ? and no, just because someone has written a book sevaral years ago, that isn't a proof.

God is talked about alot and rarely defined.
This is impossible to communicate with any semblance of possibility.
Any discussion must have a frame of reference. I find that conversations about God are meaningless unless there is a frame of reference or a (clear) definition of what is meant by "GOD".
After all, someones god may be a frog or a bearded old man in a red suite living at the North Pole.

So what if some people think a frog is a god or that some deity was the father of jesus ? Both are religion, and religion are certainly a manmade fiction either used to explain trees split by lightning or used as a political tool.

[debeest]

Originally posted by Xin Yu
I understand that, since cockroaches can survive under any environment, they do not need to learn (changing of environment has no effect on them). But for any other species, learning should be very important. Why only human beings have the ability to learn?

I picture evolution using an analogy: high-level computer languages. At first there is language A, then B, then C (including C++ , and so on, just like environment changes. When a new language is popular, anybody who works in the area needs to learn it in order to find a good job. Cochroaches use machine language so they are not effected by the advancement of languages. Human beings learn fast so they keep up with the development. Other species stop at certain point and eventually can only survive in limited area where old languages are still being used.

If the above picture is correct, then sooner or later all species (except cockroaches) will know that learning is the key to survive. They will develop the ability to learn as a result of evolution. But they didn't. Hence evolution theory is not correct.

Xin, you are one incredibly smart dude, but it's obvious that you know next to nothing about the theory of evolution by natural selection. If you really are curious, you should find a good book and learn what the theory really says. It's very different from the picture in your head right now.