New Homo erectus Skull Shakes up Palaeontology

by cofty 192 Replies latest social current

• 

  braincleaned

  Why make it simple when we can make it complicated, huh?

  I think you actually got my point — but then decided to turn it into a philosophical debate. Suit yourself.

  I note that you do not address my main point being that either a "fact" changes due to new info that makes the previous understanding anything but a fact — or that one fact is replaced by another fact, as per my example of life/death.

  There is no need for arrogant prose and spin on what I presented as a very on point and simple argument.

  But hey, I'm in a good mood. I will pretend to concede you won the argument, just for the sake of peace.
  
  __________________________________
  
  "Vigorous writing is concise. A sentence should contain no unnecessary words, a paragraph no unnecessary sentences, for the same reason that a drawing should have no unnecessary lines and a machine no unnecessary parts."
  William Strunk, Jr.
• 

  cofty

  My contempt for relativisitic waffle is a fact.

  Why do so many threads end up with SBF telling us that nobody knows anything?
• 

  KateWild

  Cofty,

  Please forgive me, still finding my feet. I find the following a contradictory comment don't you?

  Evolution doesn't make god impossible it just makes him redundant.

  If evolution is an ongoing process, can one not believe God is guiding the formation of living things? Am I screwed up by the WT or do I make sense to you?

  Kate xx
• 

  slimboyfat

  Why do so many threads end up with SBF telling us that nobody knows anything?

  Why do you consider your modernist, atheistic interjections in mystical trains of thought to be legitimate interventions, whereas my perspectivist counter-interjections are viewed as illegitimate attempts to subvert the conversation? If we counted them up I'm sure you've made more such interjections, yet mine are to be especially despised.

  Facts change according to one's perspective that's the point.
• 

  cofty

  Hi Kate. Many christians accept the evidence for evolution while trying to find a role for god in the process. It is the basic idea behind the "Intelligent Design" movement centred on the Discovery Institute.

  The problem with the idea is that everything can be explained without inserting a supernatural force so why do so? Isaac Newton thought that god was needed to explain why the planets revolved on the same plane. Others have argued that god was needed to explain complex objects like the eye, or mechanisms such as the bacterial flagellum or the blood-clotting cascade.

  One by one all of these things have been explained by science. They proved to be god-of-the-gaps arguments or arguments from ignorance - "I can't imagine how such a thing could have evolved, therefore god..."

  Other beleivers advocate "Theistic Evolution" which proposes that god only set the initial conditions for evolution. Scientists like Francis Collins and Kenneth Miller hold to this view.

  It is compatable with science but raises other difficult questions. For example, why would god use such a wasteful proccess? More than 99% of all the species that have ver lived have long since been discarded by evolution.
• 

  cofty

  Facts change according to one's perspective that's the point.

  No they don't. Our interpretation of facts change. Some interpretations are closer to reality than others.

  Facts are statements about reality. Reality still exist when we choose not to beleive in it.

  Relativism is mental masturbation. If you must do it please don't do it on a thread I started.
• 

  slimboyfat

  How can you tell if one interpretation is closer to reality than another?

  Reality exists, I don't dispute that. (Probably) But the point is that no language is equipped to put it in a permanent prison.
• 

  KateWild

  Cofty,

  Fabulous answer, but I do have mixed feelings on some of your points. You wrote

  The problem with the idea is that everything can be explained without inserting a supernatural force so why do so?

  and

  They proved to be god-of-the-gaps arguments

  Can everything in the whole wide world really be explained cofty? A bit of a generalisation, perhaps or am I messed up with my issues surrounding WT? Now your god-of-the-gaps point is something I have seen you write on another thread. Is it so bad if one fills in the gaps with God? Other posters seemed to have valid points too. So now do I have mixed feelings? Not about God. I still believe he exists. But I have mixed feelings about the bible, WT, and religion.

  Kate xx
• 

  konceptual99

  Hi Kate,

  18 months ago I had no major doubts about anything to do with the WTS. I now have a very, very different perspective.

  I never doubted creation but a number of things did not make sense such as the flood account, evidence of human existance way beyond 6000 years. constant ridiculing of any science that disagreed with the Bible, reasonings on Neanderthals etc. etc.

  I held onto a lingering belief that God exisits for some time but if you start to accept the facts as presented by commonly accepted science as it stands then you have the same questions that we, in our dub state, have attributed to the lost and godless. Things like why does an all powerful God allow suffering, where did God come from etc.

  There are all sorts of philosophical arguments around the acceptance or not of God's existance and, by extension, the answer to these questions but for me the proability of God existing in the way as described by the WTS is so close to zero as to make it irrelevent. I know there are plenty of people who leave the WTS and maintain a faith in God and Jesus but to me logic is shouting out the opposite view. Of course, where you end up is down to you and your choice. I would just urge you not to replace one narrow view with another.

  In response to your question about "can everything be explained" you may want to look up some information on the Theory of Everything. The problem science has at the moment is that it is a struggle to combine two major physcial frameworks described by General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. If science could find a way of combining these two theories then it would effectively be a theory of everything.

  There are again, philosophical arguments around whether it is even possible to solve this problem but that's another one for Cofty and SBF I think ;-)
• 

  MadGiant

  "MadGiant, do you want to break it to Eugenie C. Scott, the person IN CHARGE of Science EDUCATION in the US, she's wrong about her understanding of a BASIC TERM used in science? A topic in which SHE WROTE A TEXTBOOK?" - Adam

  Argument from authority (Argumentum ab auctoritate), also authoritative argument, appeal to authority, and false authority, is an inductive reasoning argument that often takes the form of a statistical syllogism. Although certain classes of argument from authority can constitute strong inductive arguments, the appeal to authority is often applied fallaciously.

  "Fact is, FACTS change ALL THE TIME, eg we used to think ulcers were caused by stress until a researcher discovered that a previously unknown bacteria played a role; the new information changed the way doctors approached the treatment of gastric ulcers, using an antibiotic instead of only yoga. If you took a physiology exam in 1960 where the subject was gastric ulcers, you would've been graded quite differently on a test (the professor would've used different answers on the answer key) than if you answered the same way in 2013. FACTS CHANGE, and that's what so great about science; there are "no sacred cows"." - Adam

  Yes, they get modifications, and that is part of the learning process. The earth was the center of the universe, the earth was flat, the milky way was the entire universe. Even a spontaneous generation, but a fact is a fact because it was tested and can be tested a number of times with the same results.

  Facts

  The word fact can be used several ways, but in general in science, "facts" refer to the observations. They are best when they are repeatable observations under controlled conditions, such as "It is a fact that the speed of light is constant in a vacuum." This is the part of science which will be the same a century from now, unless more precise measurements show otherwise.

  Reaserch, preliminary results, final results, investigation and facts are different things.

  Ismael