What evidence convinced Dawkins that the brain, from which he materializes to use logic and reason to examine Darwin’s theory, evolved over time?
The answer to that is the theory of evolution. I'm not going to summarize that for you. I'm reading Darwin's book right now actually, but I'm a computer programmer. If you want to know how humans became human, there lots of ways to get answers to that. Would you like some links to PBS? You can also find stories Dawkins has written and spoke about telling how he learned what he did. But that's just one person. I don't rely on one person. I'm not sure why you would focus on him.
This is a forum to talk about how we relate to the world we live in. What has convinced you that we didn’t evolve over time? How old do you think the earth is? Why do we share so much DNA with Bonobos?
Write4U said: “I don’t. Logic cannot prove anything, it may be founded on a false premise. Logic can only yield a valid conclusion IF the premise is true.”
All premises are suppositions. They form the bases for establishing all our worldviews in science and religion. If they work for you, then they are accepted by you as true; otherwise, they are false, as far as you are concerned.
Write4U said: “The premise of a god shall always be a circular argument. The concept has no testable properties of any kind other than as a psychological mind-set.”
I’m not sure what you heard others say led you to form the opinion you have. Both religion and science have folks who are not good at articulating their respective concepts. Debunking the opinion you formed of religion is stomping on the effigy, of something, you made.
I’m not sure what you heard others say led you to form the opinion you have. Both religion and science have folks who are not good at articulating their respective concepts.
Deflection is useless. If you can offer evidence of a supernatural creator other than the bible, post it and refrain from borderline ad hominem. Ok?
Sree, you’re talking as if you know something, but you aren’t offering any information. I know the story of Jesus and it doesn’t offer what you are implying.
If you don’t have a way getting at truth, how can we even have a conversation?
The scientific community is not different from the Roman Catholic Church.
I beg to differ
Why, after two thousand years, have two Popes on advice of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, finally conceded that Darwinian Evolution is fact, in direct contradiction of biblical accounts? Yet I see no modification in the bible to account for this scientifically proven truth. Highly unscientific, IMO.
p.s. irreducible complexity (ID) is a tenet of the religious community, but has been thoroughly debunked by Science.
Write4U said: “Deflection is useless. If you can offer evidence of a supernatural creator other than the bible, post it and refrain from borderline ad hominem. Ok?”
Supernatural creator. Is this the summation of religion?
Science is about the acquisition of knowledge whether it is useful or not. In the end, it is no different from religion in forming a body of dogmas.
This topic is about proving that religion and science are two aspects of the same human endeavor: finding meaning in life.
Lausten said: “If you don’t have a way getting at truth, how can we even have a conversation?”
Getting at “truth” is the problem. There is no such thing. But what we can get our hands on and sink our teeth into are untruths, that body of lies that has entrapped us in a fictitious world called objective reality. And science is the culprit.
This is not to say that religion doesn’t have its share of baloney.
Life was tough for him. He couldn’t cut it; at least, he didn’t commit suicide. He took his licks till he checked out.
Like school, life can be hard for for most of us who just can’t make the grade and drop out. Me, I always sat at the front of the class and listened intently to teacher. I had to ace the tests. I had to go to college, like Dawkins.
The variety of believers is what makes this interesting. Nothing new here, but Sree’s mix is kinda different. Saying there is no truth is a sure sign they have nothing to contribute. It’s like listening to pop music, you can tell the song is going nowhere after 3 bars.
The variety of believers is what makes this interesting. Nothing new here, but Sree’s mix is kinda different. Saying there is no truth is a sure sign they have nothing to contribute. It’s like listening to pop music, you can tell the song is going nowhere after 3 bars.
Saying that there is no truth would make me yet another kind of believer. Lausten would condemn me as such without offering me proof : evidence of even one thing that is not false. Is that the way of science?
The Universe and everything that's in it. In case you are not familiar with non-Darwinian evolution, allow me to show the various applications of the term and concepts of evolution.
Thesaurus
evolution, noun
The act or process of going from the simple or basic to the complex or advanced. The evolution of motion pictures from short, silent reels into a medium of mass entertainment and an art form
As you can see, only Darwinian Evolution pertains to “genetic mutation” of living organisms. The generic definition of Evolution applies to all other change in patterns from simple to complex.
It can be said that Biblical Scripture has not evolved along with evolving Scientific Knowledge.
