-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Rethinking evolution
- Thread starter David T
- Start date
Dony know how to read?
Brick you are the only one who actually read the article! Then again notice i didnt reference the article? That was with intent actually. People act in particular predictible ways. We can write with intent, peoples bias can be used without them realizing it.
And so we can actually have a conversation since you bothered to read the article.
Yes this whole topic of symbiosis is very cool and only some wohld agree in science its relevant. Also in science there is the soft emergence hard emegence debate as well as evolution by creaps or evolution by jerks!
In regards to symbiosis it was first discovered in 1870 its a very new topic actually. It was first discovered in lichen. I think its a bacteria and algae symbiotically coexisting as a singular organism. Which really is wierd.
I could go into my personal feeling about nature but i will just keep it at symbiosis which is related to the topic.
Well i am dyslexic, if you have no objection to disability, but it has not prevented be reading since i was diagnosed 35 years ago.
It was not the words that were a problem but the nonsensical subject matter so should ask in kind...
Do you know how to think?
P.s. see what happens when you try dissing people with ad hom?
Whay symbiosis? Nonsensical? Sorry there is a link you havent read to the post. The tipic is symbiosis.
What are you talking about? You are making make believe statements about my actions to suit your own ego.
The evidence for evolution is sound, and evident through several lines of OBSERVATION.
What have dogs to do with it, you have evidence to show even consider evolution?
I never said evolution didnt exist did i?, science narrative is not objective here. Its subjective to evolution itself.
Nature determines us not the inverse.
So what needs rethinking? Knowledge may be improved as time goes on but rethinking? The theory is sound.
Science is the objective study of nature (in this case, evotution) through observation and experiment. It is not a feeling, not an emotion, it is not subjective there is no personal opinion in science.
And you have not answered my question of how you know dogs are aware of evolution.
Audie
Veteran Member
It is kind of like one of those things you see in archaeology
via pop culture-
"New Discovery Means Everything We Thought We
Knew About Rome Is Wrong".
etc.
I just cant figure out what dogs know of evolution but despite @David T being quite canine centric in the OP he seems reluctant to discuss the claim
Audie
Veteran Member
I long since gave up conversating with him.
Too bad, really. But they little brain here can only
take so much.
I agree its a strain but i like answers, silly comments deserve to be questioned and justified or honestly retracted. Do you think I'll have any success?
Audie
Veteran Member
Not likely. Possible, not likely.
So still nothing about a dogs understanding of evolution?
Are you proposing my mutt doesnt think its human or i am a 2 legged dog? After all the actual topic is life interconnected, which is what darwin experienced. not the scientific narrative of mechanics of that. Besides dawin neo darwin are old dead extinct narratives yesterdays news.
Are you proposing that a primate abstraction in the cranium and an extremely small area of the brain at that generates evolution? A very powerful brain if thats the case.
I am proposing you are honest and provide evidence for your claim in the OP "was self evident to everyone, including dogs that life is interconnected". If you are unable to do that then it reflects on the honesty of your OP and we are done here.
Audie
Veteran Member
And not a minute too soon.
Very churchy of you then again thats normal.
Are you proposing thats not self evident? Thats actually not my problem. You are asking me to present evidence without qualifying exactly how that might work out. I could say the oldest instrument is a 5 note flute. Which btw is the oldest instrument discovered at 42,000 years old.
You could say thats stupid and all i would have to say is prove it, since you can show zero evidence my statement would appear reasoned. But in fact its not remotely reasoned since its self evident that a drum is much much older.
We are always infering regardless so the "show evidence" is a straw man. I would go furthet and state i am correct by elimination of arfuements against it in the original post. Evolution the himan narrative has zero objective aspect to it because evolution determines human thinking not human thinking determines evolution. Thats a fact and thats sound science everthing else is pseudo science nonsense.