God and Evolution

[Cooky]

First off, you stated;

...but everyone who hates thinkers, philosophers and the religious alike.​

I raised the question;

Who are these people who hate thinkers, philosophers and the religious alike?​

Now you have changed that a little to state that;

Fundamentalists do not like thinkers.​

But then you qualify that with;

There are religious and scientific fundamentalists -people who reject anything new that is not already proven.
​

Your definition is, at best, confusing. I am well aware of the what a religious fundamentalist is: One who takes holy scripture literally (although many retain the right to pick and choose).

I was not familiar with the term "scientific fundamentalism".

After doing some digging, I found this on a site that supports
acupuncture, homeopathy, Ayurveda, and holistic medicine;

The Rise of Scientific Fundamentalism

The fascist impulses of scientific fundamentalism serve first and foremost to restrict freedom of thought. Scientism is an abuse of scientific authority that justifies just about any claim that one wishes to make, all in the name of science. Scientism is, in actual fact, anti-science. Mainstream medicine would do itself a big favor by separating itself from all scientistic influences.​

Have you forgotten, or did you just choose to ignore, that science is not in the business of "proving" anything. So, "people who reject anything new that is not already proven" is really meaningless in terms of trying to apply it to people who support science. To label them "scientific fundamentalists" is nonsensical, unless one has an agenda.

It seems that the people who coined and use the terms "scientific fundamentalism" and "scientism" do so in a vain attempt to try to disparage people who despise woo. Does this apply to you?

When I speak with Christian fundamentalists, they always cite book verses that they've read... No religious thought outside that book can be entertained let alone considered as something worthy of believing or even thinking about.

...The same for *some* overzealous science enthusiasts -especially the novice. If you try to introduce some of your own philosophical thoughts, it's quickly rejected as psuedoscience or worse.

But without philosophy, science is blind. Likewise, without the conscience, fundamentalist Christianity is cold hearted.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I don’t believe silly ideas. But I am not against real scientific findings. All true observations are ok. And actually, there is no need for belief in observations that can be confirmed, they are true facts. All real scientific facts are nice and I accept them. But I don’t accept silly “scientific” beliefs that can be compared to old mother earth religion.

I assume by real scientific findings you mean real scientific findings that do not interfere or contradict your personal choice in belief systems as opposed to real scientific findings that do contradict them.

What are "true" observations? If I am working to determine the population levels of a pest of corn, I make numerous samples of a subset of a corn field and then determine an estimate of the numbers of that pest in the entire field. I could do this with a number of fields in a region and determine an estimate for that pest for the region. The estimate is a real scientific finding. I am taking the numbers I have determined based on counts in my experimental units and extending that to an entire field or region. However, I have not counted every individual of the pest species in every location and my estimate may not match the actual population numbers. For one, I am only looking in corn fields and not in other crops, ditches full of weeds or other habitats where the pest might be found.

If I am trying to determine why a series of similar fossils from different ages spanning 100 million years look similar but have differences from one age to the next, I could date them all, make measurements, examine the changes and come to a conclusion using that data. That is a real scientific finding.

Both are examples where observations have been made and data has been gathered. Both are using the scientific method to make those observations. There is nothing silly about it. In both cases, prior work would have been reviewed before making the studies. Basic information would be applied. Conclusions would be examined and compared with known information and previous conclusions. All of this would be summarized, reported and made available for further examination. Nothing silly about it.

So, you seem not to care so much about whether it is real science, but what the outcome of that science is and are choosing to ignore some based on biased and entirely subjective categorization citing reasons of poor and questionable validity that are outside the scope of the work. That you arbitrarily assign a condition of real science or not real science only compounds your errors.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

How do you know they walked upright ? What methodology was used to determine that Lucy walked upright

If you really cared about these matters, you would already have your answers.

All real scientific facts are nice and I accept them. But I don’t accept silly “scientific” beliefs that can be compared to old mother earth religion.

You decide which science to disregard based on whether it contradicts your faith-based beliefs as is true with anybody who makes this comment.

About Lucy, her skeleton tell us that she walked upright. Her hips alone do that. But that is confirmed by her knees and her foot (not hers but that of another Australopithecus).

Don't forget the position of the foramen magnum - the hole in the skull through which passes the fibers of the spinal cord. As I'm sure you know, in a quadruped, whose spinal cord parallels the earth below it, that hole is located in the occipital (posterior) part of the skull, but in bipeds like you and me, is on the inferior aspect to accommodate a spinal cord running perpendicular to the ground below.

 

[shmogie]

If you really cared about these matters, you would already have your answers.



You decide which science to disregard based on whether it contradicts your faith-based beliefs as is true with anybody who makes this comment.



Don't forget the position of the foramen magnum - the hole in the skull through which passes the fibers of the spinal cord. As I'm sure you know, in a quadruped, whose spinal cord parallels the earth below it, that hole is located in the occipital (posterior) part of the skull, but in bipeds like you and me, is on the inferior aspect.

That is proof of where this hole is. Is this what DETERMINES walking upright ?

How about measuring the length of the leg bones, has that been abandoned ?

 

[Subduction Zone]

That is proof of where this hole is. Is this what DETERMINES walking upright ?

How about measuring the length of the leg bones, has that been abandoned ?

More important then the length of the leg bones are the hips, which tell us how the angle that the legs entered at. And of course the knees which again demonstrated how weight was distributed.

I do not know how leg bone length figures into this.

That along with the knee which turns that inward slope back into a vertical one tells us more about bipedalism than anything else.

5. What is a Hominim – The History of Our Tribe: Hominini

The lateral view of the hips helps a lot too. One can see that Lucy's hip is much much more similar to man's than that of a chimp from this view:

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rstb.2014.0063

 

[ecco]

...The same for *some* overzealous science enthusiasts -especially the novice. If you try to introduce some of your own philosophical thoughts, it's quickly rejected as psuedoscience or worse.

Who are these novice overzealous science enthusiasts?

I don't consider myself overzealous, but, since I've been a fan of science all my life, I'm wouldn't consider myself a novice either. When someone tries to introduce philosophical thoughts into science, I quickly reject it as pseudoscientific woo. That's as it should be.

But without philosophy, science is blind.

What philosophical considerations were taken into consideration when scientists determined that the earth's crust moves?

What philosophical considerations were taken into consideration when scientists determined the structure of the atom?

Please give us an example to show what you mean.

Likewise, without the conscience, fundamentalist Christianity is cold hearted.

 

[Cooky]

Who are these novice overzealous science enthusiasts?

I don't consider myself overzealous, but, since I've been a fan of science all my life, I'm wouldn't consider myself a novice either. When someone tries to introduce philosophical thoughts into science, I quickly reject it as pseudoscientific woo. That's as it should be.

Yes, if it truly is psuedoscience. But philosophical thought is what drives scientists to even begin research in the first place... So it can't be dismissed!

What philosophical considerations were taken into consideration when scientists determined that the earth's crust moves?

What philosophical considerations were taken into consideration when scientists determined the structure of the atom?

Of course philosophers suggested that there may be smaller parts that make up matter, or the project would have never began.

Please give us an example to show what you mean.

Everything science does is because philosophy demands it. Example:

Democritus - Wikipedia
Democritus was an Ancient Greek pre- Socratic philosopher primarily remembered today for his formulation of an atomic theory of the universe.

 

[Cooky]

Philosophy commands science.

...As a whole, and in each individual person.

 

[1213]

...
You decide which science to disregard based ...

It is always nice when person shows clearly that he doesn’t care about the truth, thank you.

I disregard “science” that can’t be confirmed by scientific method.

 

[ecco]

Yes, if it truly is psuedoscience. But philosophical thought is what drives scientists to even begin research in the first place... So it can't be dismissed!

Einstein wonders about the relationship of a person on a train and a person on a platform.


You want to call that "philosophical thought" whereas, more correctly, it is intellectual curiosity.

What are good philosophical questions?
Deep Philosophical Questions

• Do guns protect people or kill people?
• Will racism cease to exist?
• Why is beauty associated with morality?
• Why do we respect the dead more than the living?
• Does God have supreme power?
• Will the world be a better place if caste and religion cease to exist?
• What is the meaning of true love?

More items...
•
Aug 21, 2018
105 Philosophical Questions That Will Make You Think & Elicit ...

https://owlcation.com/.../100-Philosophical-Questions-that-Make-You-Think-and-Discus...​

Do you understand the difference?

 

[ecco]

Of course philosophers suggested that there may be smaller parts that make up matter, or the project would have never began.

Everything science does is because philosophy demands it. Example:

Democritus - Wikipedia
Democritus was an Ancient Greek pre- Socratic philosopher primarily remembered today for his formulation of an atomic theory of the universe.

Twenty five hundred years ago "science" had not yet been formulated. During the past 500 years, it has. In case you didn't notice, science and philosophy are now separate and distinct.

From your own link: (my emphasis)

Their speculation on atoms, taken from Leucippus, bears a passing and partial resemblance to the 19th-century understanding of atomic structure that has led some to regard Democritus as more of a scientist than other Greek philosophers; however, their ideas rested on very different bases.[5] Largely ignored in ancient Athens, Democritus is said to have been disliked so much by Plato that the latter wished all of his books burned.[6] He was nevertheless well known to his fellow northern-born philosopher Aristotle. Many consider Democritus to be the "father of modern science".[7] None of his writings have survived; only fragments are known from his vast body of work.[8]
​

That this is the best example that you can come up shows the weakness of your position.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

An evolutionist coined the term macro and micro evolution. It has fallen out of vogue with evolutionists today.

And there's an excellent reason for that falling out...and that reason is simply one of magnitude. Not magnitude of the nature of any change, but magnitude in terms of the time scale over which changes occur. A change over weeks, months, years...even centuries, involving few generations is apt to be small. So I think you are guilty of very limited thinking.

Evolution appears to be the sweep of the process going from molecule to man.

I believe in micro evolution, that is the adaption of an organism to its environment. I do not ascribe to macro evolution.

So, to the antibiotic resistant bacteria. Are they and example of molecule to man evolution ? no.

Antibiotic resistant bacteria began appearing in the late 1940´s

Antibiotic resistant bacteria come about in two ways, gene transfer between organisms (horizontal gene transfer)

Adaption

They become antibiotic resistant by the alteration of a gene changes the protein that the antibiotic binds to kill the organism . The antibiotic cannot bind to the protein, the antibiotic is useless. In an antibiotic present environment, survival of the fittest results in a population of antibiotic resistant bacteria.

However, the altered protein is less able perform itś original function. Outside of the antibiotic present environment, the bacteria is less fit to survive. Natural selection will eliminate it.

In the anthrax scare after 9/11 the antibiotic cipro was given to possible victims. Cipro belongs to a class of antibiotics called quinolones, which bind to a protein called gyrase. interfering with the ability of the bacteria to reproduce, so, it can be overwhelmed by the bodyś immune system.

The quinolone resistant bacteria have mutations in the genes encoding the gyrase protein. The bacteria survive because the cipro cannot bind to the protein.

However, the price paid for the resistance is that these bacteria reproduce more slowly, and cannot compete in a non quinolone environment.

The mechanisms of mutation and natural selection aid bacteria populations to become resistant to antibiotics BUT, the same processes result in bacteria with defective proteins that have lost their natural functions.

Evolution requires a gain of functional systems for bacteria to evolve beyond being bacteria.

Mutation and natural selection of bacteria re antibiotics results in the loss of natural functional systems.

So, antibiotic bacteria are not examples of evolution, but rather are variations within a type of organism, which Creationists readily admit occur. These bacteria have not gained anything that will help them evolve into the next type of organism.

See

¨Antibiotic resistant bacteria, how did we get to this ?" flemingforum.org,uk

¨The problem with antimicrobial resistance ¨ National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases

Heddle, Johnathon and Anthony Maxwell, ¨ Quinolone binding pocket DNA gyrase¨ Antimicrobial agents and Chemotherapy, 46 1805 - 1815 2002

As I said, a few changes over a short term or few generations are likely not to be very noticeable, and would certainly not result in what might be called an alteration is species. But what happens over much grander scales, over hundreds, thousands or millions of generations, over long time scales in which even the earth beneath our feet and the climate in which we live also change around us?

Movies typically are filmed at 24 frames per second, and if you are viewing a drawing room scene, trying to discern the difference between one frame and the next is very nearly impossible (except for extremely fast, near-single frame events). Yet in the course of a mere 10 seconds (or 240 frames) you can find yourself going from a scene with 2 living people conversing to one with a dead body on the floor and an open door where the other person once was.

The problem too many people have, and I think you have it from what you've written, is that you are not thinking broadly enough. How many imperceptible changes to anything might be made before, one day, you decide to look back to the first example, and discover that you can't even recognize it as the progenitor? Those are the scales over which you have to think...and it is precisely that sort of scale that we are actually not very good at. It takes opening your mind -- and practice.

 

[Cooky]

Einstein wonders about the relationship of a person on a train and a person on a platform.


You want to call that "philosophical thought" whereas, more correctly, it is intellectual curiosity.

What are good philosophical questions?
Deep Philosophical Questions

• Do guns protect people or kill people?
• Will racism cease to exist?
• Why is beauty associated with morality?
• Why do we respect the dead more than the living?
• Does God have supreme power?
• Will the world be a better place if caste and religion cease to exist?
• What is the meaning of true love?

More items...
•
Aug 21, 2018
105 Philosophical Questions That Will Make You Think & Elicit ...

https://owlcation.com/.../100-Philosophical-Questions-that-Make-You-Think-and-Discus...​

Do you understand the difference?

No, I don't understand the difference -because there is none. It seems like you're trying to confine the definition and scope of what philosophy is and should be.

What you seem to want, is for philosplophy to be an outdated, pre-science subject that no longer serves a purpose aside from a subject in history books... But that couldn't be more wrong.

Also, what is "intellectual curiosity"? That's just the same as curiousness. And how is curiousness seperate from philosophy..?

 

[Cooky]

Twenty five hundred years ago "science" had not yet been formulated. During the past 500 years, it has. In case you didn't notice, science and philosophy are now separate and distinct.

From your own link: (my emphasis)

Their speculation on atoms, taken from Leucippus, bears a passing and partial resemblance to the 19th-century understanding of atomic structure that has led some to regard Democritus as more of a scientist than other Greek philosophers; however, their ideas rested on very different bases.[5] Largely ignored in ancient Athens, Democritus is said to have been disliked so much by Plato that the latter wished all of his books burned.[6] He was nevertheless well known to his fellow northern-born philosopher Aristotle. Many consider Democritus to be the "father of modern science".[7] None of his writings have survived; only fragments are known from his vast body of work.[8]
​

That this is the best example that you can come up shows the weakness of your position.

Philosophy is not in competition with science, and science is not in competition with philosophy.

I know you like the phrase "intellectual curiosity", so I guess from now on, when speaking with you, I will replace the word philosophy with "intellectual curiosity" and then you'll get my points.

It's "Intellectual Curiatism".

 

[Cooky]

@Evangelicalhumanist, do you think we should change the word "philosophy" to "Intellectual Curitism" to seperate new curiosities from old curiosities?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

@Evangelicalhumanist, do you think we should change the word "philosophy" to "Intellectual Curitism" to seperate new curiosities from old curiosities?

No, I don't think we need to change what we call things. Philosophy just means love of knowledge, and intellectual curiosity is just one expression of that. I think the most important thing is to figure out how to know, when we are trying to satisfy our intellectual curiosity, that we are arriving at genuine answers.

 

[Cooky]

No, I don't think we need to change what we call things. Philosophy just means love of knowledge, and intellectual curiosity is just one expression of that. I think the most important thing is to figure out how to know, when we are trying to satisfy our intellectual curiosity, that we are arriving at genuine answers.

I wouldn't even engage in serious debate with someone who doesn't know that.

...The scientific method is the gold standard. But if something hasn't been recreated yet, but people are actively working on it -it's not psuedoscience yet... It has to fail the gold standard first.

I want people to recognize that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I wouldn't even engage in serious debate with someone who doesn't know that.

...The scientific method is the gold standard. But if something hasn't been recreated yet, but people are actively working on it -it's not psuedoscience yet... It has to fail the gold standard first.

I want people to recognize that.

The scientific method does not require that events have to be recreated. Test results have to be repeated.

 

[Cooky]

The scientific method does not require that events have to be recreated. Test results have to be repeated.

Yes, thank you, that's the word I was looking for.

 

[ecco]

How many imperceptible changes to anything might be made before, one day, you decide to look back to the first example, and discover that you can't even recognize it as the progenitor?

Like needing to get a haircut or a fingernail trim.