A
Aloysium
Guest
The Ptolemaic System was never proved false; there is a much better way to understand what is going on.
- Status
M
mVitus
Guest
What a second, you’re saying that this,
has not been proved false? So if I said that the earth is stationary and the sun revolves around it with the planets, would you say I just have a different (as opposed to incorrect) way of looking at things?
has not been proved false? So if I said that the earth is stationary and the sun revolves around it with the planets, would you say I just have a different (as opposed to incorrect) way of looking at things?
R
rossum
Guest
That is random mutation in action. It is not secret or special information. It is normal DNA and the normal effects of DNA.
You do realise that many antibiotics are developed from the ways bacteria attack other bacteria?
You are trying to build too much on a very flimsy foundation.
rossum
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
The Ptolemaic System, as shown by mVitus’s diagram, posits that the distance between the earth and the other objects remains relatively constant while the distance between those other objects changes. We know for a fact that the distances from the sun to all those other objects are the distances that stay relatively constant. So that system has been proven to be factually incorrect - not just an “alternate way of looking at things”. It is factually incorrect way of looking at things.LeafByNiggle:
The Ptolemaic System was never proved false; there is a much better way to understand what is going on.
B
Bradskii
Guest
From the Smithsonian again: ‘The fossils of early humans who lived between 6 and 2 million years ago come entirely from Africa. Most scientists currently recognize some 15 to 20 different species of early humans’. http://humanorigins.si.edu/education/introduction-human-evolution
Do you understand that? There are very many different species of humans. Homo sapien is just the latest (yeah, we ARE described as the latest as opposed to the earliest). So no, not all humans are Homo sapien (and the ‘Homo’ requires a capital H by the way). Anything that carries the prefix Homo is considered human. Well, by everyone who knows anything about this.
That you didn’t understand that explains a lot of what you have written. If you start with so basic a misunderstanding then no wonder what you post is so obviously wrong.
Now you do have the information you can approach this in two ways.
Firstly, you can adjust your views to suit the knowledge you now have and stand corrected.
Or secondly you can try something along the lines of ‘well, that’s not how I describe a human’. Which is probably when you think someone gave us a soul. In which case you’ll be judged accordingly. Quite a low score on your theology and a fat zero on paleoanthrapology.
Last edited:
B
Bradskii
Guest
Uh? Look, do you guys never understand the meaning of a theory? If facts support a theory, the theory stands. Until such time as new facts emerge which contradict the current theory. Which is then adjusted or abandoned. And for abandoned read ‘proved to be false’.
Now correct me if I’m wrong, but the Ptolomaic theory of how the solar system operates does not now match the facts. So do you think it has been abandoned or adjusted to suit? And for abandoned we can safely say ‘proved to be false’.
Which do you think?
A
Aloysium
Guest
I wasn’t referring to this simplistic rendition, but to the actual calculations which could predict where any planet would appear in the sky at any particular time.
The use of the diagram above is analogous to:
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
which many of us grew up with. Science has the potential to always grow. Keeping an open mind, understanding the limitations inhrent in our methods, we can really enter into the mysteries of creation.
A
Aloysium
Guest
Whatever dude. What a waste of time.
A
Aloysium
Guest
See above.
O
o_mlly
Guest
Get a grip, man. It’s ~ 4 AM down under. Got get some sleep; you seem agitated.
You are not now on the atheist’s web site but on Catholic Answers. Our definition of human controls.
CCC#357 Being in the image of God the human individual possesses the dignity of a person, who is not just something, but someone. He is capable of self-knowledge, of self-possession and of freely giving himself and entering into communion with other persons.
O
o_mlly
Guest
The truth does not “adjust” over time. To wit from 2016:
Continuing the discussion from Personhood - Definition:
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Then let’s see how this does or does not apply to evolution.
Recall that you introduced these other theories to demonstrate that evolution and intelligent design are equally-valid theories since they predict the same outcomes. That is, they have the same “calculations,” to use your term for the Ptolemaic system.
There are two problems with this comparison. The first is that any theory that relies on the existence of an untestable and all-powerful intelligent being may be fine as a philosophical theory, but it does not qualify as a scientific theory. You may think I am talking about God. But I might also be talking about the Matrix. Imagine you are Neo, experiencing the world through the Matrix. What might your science look like? Well, if Neo is acting like a true scientist, he would conclude that the world obeys whatever laws the Matrix has programmed for him to experience. And he would be right in doing so - even though we (and Morpheus) know the “truth” because we are outside the Matrix and for us the Matrix is not untestable. It is not until Neo is removed from the Matrix that he too can see the “truth.”
Similarly, until we are removed from “the world” at the time of our death and do experience a larger reality in the afterlife, we can only define science in terms of what is testable by us. So even though one can construct a perfectly consistent theory of intelligent design that is consistent with every observable fact, it would not be a scientific theory - even if it turns out to be true when viewed from outside the world. Those are just the rules of the game. They may be artificial rules, just like the rules of baseball. But if you want to play the game of science, you have to play by the rules of science. If you don’t like that game, then go ahead and play some other game, but don’t confuse people by calling it science too.
The other problem with your comparison is that intelligent design does not in fact “have the same calculations” and predict the same outcome as evolution. Of course this depends on the precise brand of ID you believe in. But if you are talking about what I would call “soft ID,” that would mean that physically-observable artifacts have been placed into genetic material that anticipate the various morphological changes and those changes emerge at the proper time according to the ordinary rules of science. There is good reason to disbelieve this. I can describe an experiment that disproves it, if you are interested.
If however you are talking about “hard ID” where the intelligent designer (God or whatever) takes firm control of every atom and forces all morphological changes according to His own will, then that form of ID could be indistinguishable from evolution to an observer in the world. In that case ID and evolution would be two ways of looking at the world. But by the rules of science that I described earlier, only evolution would be called a scientific theory.
Last edited:
B
Bradskii
Guest
So as I thought. Went with option 2. ‘When I referred to Homo sapien I meant something else entirely’. Of course you did. And I knew you did. It’s just that you didn’t know enough about the subject to appreciate it. At least you do now.Bradskii:
Get a grip, man. It’s ~ 4 AM down under. Got get some sleep; you seem agitated.
You are not now on the atheist’s web site but on Catholic Answers. Our definition of human controls.
CCC#357 Being in the image of God the human individual possesses the dignity of a person, who is not just something, but someone. He is capable of self-knowledge, of self-possession and of freely giving himself and entering into communion with other persons.
And it’s currently 8:30pm where I am. Not far from the Rio Vero in Aragon where there are cave paintings from the Paleolithic period. Art from a period that goes back over 3 million years and covers about 95% of our tecnological history. If time allows I might check them out in the next day or so.
Human art. Art from humans. Except they weren’t as far as you were concerned. But past tense is now applicable. Because as I said, you now know a little more.
O
o_mlly
Guest
Now, be fair. Artwork is evidence of imagination and abstraction. Faculties that are human as I have consistently posted. Next question.
S
Sonic
Guest
It’s also evidence of religion/ religious thinking, because art has always been tied to religion throughout the history of humanity.
/goes back to lurking now/
Last edited:
B
Bradskii
Guest
Indeed they are human. From 3 million years ago. Except that you don’t consider those who made the art human.
We can go back 100,000 years at a time and your (imposssible) job is to say: Yes, At This Specific Time man become what we accept as human.
Well, weare discussing evolution, not theology. Theology has a specific answer. Science does not.
Again, thanks for playing. It’s a waste of my time discussing something with somone who has too limited an understanding of the subject.
Last edited:
B
bobperk
Guest
The “evolution” of art: from holy and pious Renaissance masterpieces to paint splattered haphazardly
R
RealAmerican
Guest
Endosymbiotic theory holds that parts of the human cell evolved from more primitive organisms.
There was living bacteria in the dust that God breathed into to create Adam.
I find these vaguely consistent with each other.
There was living bacteria in the dust that God breathed into to create Adam.
I find these vaguely consistent with each other.
R
rossum
Guest
- Status