• 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!

Evolution, maybe someone can explain?

Indeed he doesn't. He is free to engage in irrational risk assessment.



The very post you are replying to is literally stating to weigh the pro's against the cons. I merely pointed out that the cons are not just limited to the cons of taking the vaccine, but also the cons of NOT taking the vaccine.

Not taking the vaccine means you aren't protected against the disease. So you would have to add that in.
If a vaccine has a 10% chance of making you infertile and the disease it protects you against is for example extremely contagious (so VERY HIGH probability of getting it) and has a 90% mortality rate, then clearly taking the vaccine is the better choice in terms of risk assessment.

If on the other hand you have low chance of getting the disease and the mortality rate is only 0.01%, then taking a vaccine with 10% chance of infertility is rationally not a good choice in terms of risk assessment.

:shrug:

Seems pretty obvious



What makes you think I didn't?
Seeing your posts it becomes immediately obvious you are stubborn and arrogant and don't consider all sides to anything
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
I am a truth teller so you should learn from me if your fragile ego will consider something better than science for once... truth.

Your "truth" so far has shown that you apparently don't even know what evolution is about or within which field of science it exists.
So excuse me while I ignore your empty claims of "truth".

First of all, the earth is not a sphere, it is oblique and fat in the middle. And science isn't very explanatory, more observatory.

Explanation is science's raison d'être. Without explanation, observations are useless.
Observations are just data. Data needs to be explained.

How can you think it is the most true science can be for explaining things when we can't observe something that took place before our arrival and continuously see it happen rapidly where as some tests such as litmus paper can be done over and over again with great accuracy.

Events of the past leave evidence that we can study in the present.


You do a terrible job representing science which shows me you are very ill informed. The main problem science has is the arrogance of some of their statements. I'd rather just have a conversation about truth rather than theories and ego glorification
Without "theories", we wouldn't even be having this conversation because we wouldn't have internet devices allowing us to send each other messages at the speed of light.

You rely on the science you so despise for pretty much everything in your high tech existence. From the warming of your home to driving your car to work to spewing your drivel all over the internet.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Oh? You know where and when life started? You do??
Sounds like someone is arguing from ignorance and according to science, it isn't me...:)
"The origin of life on Earth stands as one of the great mysteries of science. Various answers have been proposed, all of which remain unverified." (All answers remain UNVERIFIED. But you know, is that right?
You are citing a layman newspaper reference. Yes, there remain unanswered questions as with all sciences, but your intentional ignorance based on "Arguing from Ignorance" and an ancient tribal agenda dominates, Many academic references have been cited in the past have been cited that describe what is known concerning the time frame and where in the hydrothermal vents at ocean spreading zones where the first evidence and later fossils were found and you choose to ignore them.

Your intentional ignorance of science reigns in your world ruled by an ancient tribal agenda, Smiley faces do not add to your intentional ignorance, You reject sciences evolution upfront so why argue your ignorance of abiogenesis?
 

wellwisher

Well-Known Member
You touch on several things here that I'd like to discuss but might wait for a more appropriate thread.

In every real way it might be said there aren't seven thousand languages but rather 7 billion because we each have different models and beliefs. 3% of physicists believe a plane can't take off from a conveyor belt. Obviously his models differ in significant ways from all the rest. He didn't learn and incorporate permanence of perspective. Anyone can misthink and these guys are sharp enough that it's little more than just this but what about aviation engineers. These guys are sharp too. But maintaining a single perspective isn't important in designing aircraft. It's a little more important in flying them because seat of the pants flyers don't live long and pilots do even worse. I suppose if you know better than to use the seat of your pants you'll be OK.

The left brain right brain thing is something I've thought a lot about. I think you're most probably right that people before babel used both sides and their functions were identical or nearly so. I too use both sides almost the same but I must talk and communicate left brained.

Thanks for the post, again. It makes me think.
Human language is subjective since there are very few natural cause and effect association, between word sounds and the object/action/modifier, it represents. For example, the cat does not make any noise that sounds like the word cat. Why do we use that noise to label a cat? Wouldn't meow be closer to a natural sound for a cat and thereby, could naturally represent the cat? The sound choice is arbitrary and can be replaced by any other sound you want. Once a group agrees on the sound label, we creates a subjective cause and effect and we can transfer thought. But there is still that subjective matrix, so a meeting of the minds may not be perfect. This imperfection allows for subjective creativity and even opinions.

How to Say Cat in 70 Different Languages - LexiGlobe

There is a universal language that we call vision and sight. If we had a group of objects on a table, and I gather the 70 people above, that each labels the cat with a different sound, they could all visualize the cat and point to it, even though they may not understand the other 69 sounds I make. There is an arbitrary sound, but also a distinct visual attachment. We use a blend of subjective and objective.

Vision, as a language is based on the light; photons, reflected and emitted by objects that reach the eyes and are processed by the brain. There is a natural alphabet of colors, textures, shapes, smoothness, reflectivity, etc, that is not man made and is collective to all humans. Th caveman would notice the shiny gold rock. A picture is worth a thousand words, since objectivity of sight, often means more than an approximation caused by words. This is why in science, even if you publish, the last step will be others reproducing your results, so they can see for themselves. The latter, is the natural gold standard for all humans.

Dreams are sort of interesting in that they tend to use mostly the universal visual language. The brain; unconscious, is using the same pathways as the eyes, but is starting the visual language process within the brain using ionic currents. Dreams use to be more important since they speak the universal languages of the eyes and others senses and minimize the subjective language of words.

My brain was always wired differently, in the sense, I forget names, but I can remember the visuals and what was said, since wha was said would induce my inner vision, and I could describe based on my induced visual storage; paraphrase. When I create new ideas, my brain uses the visual vocabulary for processing,I then put that into written language, due to the visual symbols of written language. I would be harder of me to explain the nuance, with just spoken language, since new ideas will have a subjective wall to overcome that would be easier for me to show than to tell.

This topic is connected to human consciousness evolution, since communication is how knowledge grows and the brain operating system updates; evolves. It has a sense of direction; more sophistication. The spoken language matrix, by not being natural, is also a way for consciouses to depart from the DNA, and evolve like a separate branch, but attach to the genetic tree.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Seeing your posts it becomes immediately obvious you are stubborn and arrogant and don't consider all sides to anything
What "other sides" of the argument are supported by the objective verifiable evidence of hundreds of years of scientific discoveries and research?

The thread concerns the sciences of evolution. Do you accept the sciences of evolution? Mush of our knowledge of viruses are rooted in the basic sciences of genetics and the nature of life and how viruses evolve and infect humans.

Conspiracy theories abound concerning viruses and vaccines abound, and ly in the foundation of rejecting science from the beginning. It is difficult to consider "other sides" that reject basic science and how scientific methods are applied.
 
Last edited:
Your "truth" so far has shown that you apparently don't even know what evolution is about or within which field of science it exists.
So excuse me while I ignore your empty claims of "truth".



Explanation is science's raison d'être. Without explanation, observations are useless.
Observations are just data. Data needs to be explained.



Events of the past leave evidence that we can study in the present.



Without "theories", we wouldn't even be having this conversation because we wouldn't have internet devices allowing us to send each other messages at the speed of light.

You rely on the science you so despise for pretty much everything in your high tech existence. From the warming of your home to driving your car to work to spewing your drivel all over the internet.
So you failed miserably to speak in truths again. By assuming you know my knowledge about a subject we have not even discussed yet opens you up to being wrong. And of course you were wrong as well.

"Excuse me while I ignore your empty claims of truth" but you just spoke about them so you didn't really ignore it did you. Why would i listen to a science freak who admits that science is not 100% true when I know things that are.

Observations are factual though. Explanations are not always. So observations need explanations to be useful lmfaooo. So knowing that the stove is hot isn't useful until I understand why it is hot and break down how a stove and heat work?

Data needs to be explained just makes me sad for your teachers. Data needs no explanation, it's a collection of statistics. It is up to the user how it is applied if at all. So the data shows that there are 200 million people in this country, why should that be explained? It's just a fact.

And you don't need internet devices to have conversations at the speed of light. Its actually much slower by the way even though you think you speak truthfully. The conversation would be over long ago if that were the case. It also takes longer than the apparent speed of light for the message to go through and then be refreshed and appear on your end. We could have this talk in person though and not need the device which would be a much better reality. This convo sucks too, just me trying to help you learn but your ego is holding you back, it's frustrating to see somebody so lost refuse to accept any help
 
What "other sides" of the argument are supported by the objective verifiable evidence of hundreds of years of scientific discoveries and research?

The thread concerns the sciences of evolution. Do you accept the sciences of evolution? Mush of our knowledge of viruses are rooted in the basic sciences of genetics and the nature of life and how viruses evolve and infect humans.

Conspiracy theories abound concerning viruses and vaccines abound, and ly in the foundation of rejecting science from the beginning. It is difficult to consider "other sides" that reject basic science and how scientific methods are applied.
Sorry it's just most science lovers I see are just as arrogant as religious die hards in believing to know anything to be true.

Try not to spam me again with your triggered ego and please try to argue me about anything science related. You pick whatever argument and whatever side you desire... i should warn you though, I don't lose
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
Seeing your posts it becomes immediately obvious you are stubborn and arrogant and don't consider all sides to anything
tenor.gif



I consider sides that can supply evidence.
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
What is this widespread belief that science is a group project of good old boys who have to belong to a club! Nobody believed anything like this when I was young
Where'd you come up with this idea?
This belief may be widespread in religious or flat-Earth societies, but I doubt it has much support among the scientifically literate. It sounds like some kind of conspiracy theory.
.

In the old days each individual had his own unique models of experiment and reality and only individuals had ideas or invented hypothesis and experiment. I can't imagine how any of them are thinking now or how they can stay in lockstep. Perhaps it's a sort of synchronicity achieved by having all the same beliefs of which none are in Kuhn, and frankly, all seem to know there is no God.
So in the good old days everyone did his own thing, methods were slapdash, and conclusions poorly verified and -- no surprise -- contradictory. That may have had something to do with all the wild, conflicting and erroneous ideas circulating back then, and the snail's pace of progress and understanding.

Scientists "stay in lockstep," or at least agree on basic facts and explanations because of this new methodology of critical analysis, testing, and review that we practice today.
Keep in mind that science is not like religion. It doesn't begin with the conclusion. Science's basic beliefs are uniform because they're the result of this technique of analysis, testing and review, which yields reliable, predictive, productive, uniform, facts.
 
Last edited:

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
So observations need explanations to be useful lmfaooo.

Yes.


So knowing that the stove is hot isn't useful until I understand why it is hot and break down how a stove and heat work?

If you wish to be able to build your own stove, then you will have to understand why it is hot. The mere observation that it is hot will not be helpful.

Why is it hot? Answering that question will explain the observation. That explanation will allow you to actually do things that make use of it.

Explanations allow you to build technology and tools. Mere observations do not.
Explanations allow you to make testable predictions. They thus inform you of expected behavior in various circumstances.

Data needs to be explained just makes me sad for your teachers. Data needs no explanation, it's a collection of statistics. It is up to the user how it is applied if at all. So the data shows that there are 200 million people in this country, why should that be explained? It's just a fact.

:facepalm:

and also a bit of

:tearsofjoy::tearsofjoy:

And you don't need internet devices to have conversations at the speed of light. Its actually much slower by the way even though you think you speak truthfully. The conversation would be over long ago if that were the case. It also takes longer than the apparent speed of light for the message to go through and then be refreshed and appear on your end. We could have this talk in person though and not need the device which would be a much better reality. This convo sucks too, just me trying to help you learn but your ego is holding you back, it's frustrating to see somebody so lost refuse to accept any help
ThePoint.gif
 
Yes.




If you wish to be able to build your own stove, then you will have to understand why it is hot. The mere observation that it is hot will not be helpful.

Why is it hot? Answering that question will explain the observation. That explanation will allow you to actually do things that make use of it.

Explanations allow you to build technology and tools. Mere observations do not.
Explanations allow you to make testable predictions. They thus inform you of expected behavior in various circumstances.



:facepalm:

and also a bit of

:tearsofjoy::tearsofjoy:


View attachment 100132
Man you need to just trust me for once and learn one thing today. I brought up the hand is hot scenario as an example a young kid might experience and then know to avoid touching it. You turned it into how to build a stove. That had nothing to do with the scenario.

You cannot learn how to build tools with observation lol? So if I saw someone make a paper airplane I could not just follow what they did? It would need explanation.

Give me an example of how you personally used an explanation to predict the behavior of something
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Sorry it's just most science lovers I see are just as arrogant as religious die hards in believing to know anything to be true.
But compare the epistemic methodology of science lovers vs religious die hards and you'll see why the conclusions and beliefs of the intellectuals are more uniform, reliable and productive than those of the religious. Tested, predictive, productive beliefs are more reliable than superstition and poorly evidenced traditions.
Scientific beliefs aren't arrogated. Science can tell you why a given belief is held, and show you the objective, empirical, tested evidence supporting it. Religion cannot do this.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
Like the evidence for the big bang

Yes.

and the universe nobody can see

The universe nobody can what-now?

and black holes and all the other stuff?

You don't believe black holes exist? :joycat:

1732285720221.png


.

I'll be nice, here is your one chance to prove evolution.

As has been stated already, theories are never considered proven in science. Have you already forgotten?


Pick and argument in any subject, pick what side you'd like to have, I'll take the opposing one. Beat me and you prove evolution.
So not only have you already forgotten that in science theories are never "proven", you also don't seem to understand that beating you in an argument only means that you lost the argument, not that the subject matter is therefor "proven".

Scientific theories aren't demonstrated through silly arguments in "debate" format.
Instead, they are demonstrated through independently verifiable evidence.

And evolution has multiple independent lines of such evidence all converging on the same answer: genetics, phylogenies, comparative genomics, comparative anatomy, geographic distribution of species,...

But it sounds as if all of them would go right over your head.
In fact, I bet you couldn't even summarize what evolution theory is all about in the most simplest evolution 101 terms at high school level without screwing up/.
 
You kind of just proved my point. Alot of statements seen here insinuating truth. Pretty much everything you said was wrong. Pick one statement and I'll try to help you find truth
But compare the epistemic methodology of science lovers vs religious die hards and you'll see why the conclusions and beliefs of the intellectuals are more uniform, reliable and productive than those of the religious. Tested, predictive, productive beliefs are more reliable than superstition and poorly evidenced traditions.
Scientific beliefs aren't arrogated. Science can tell you why a given belief is held, and show you the objective, empirical, tested evidence supporting it. Religion cannot do this.
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Like the evidence for the big bang and the universe nobody can see and black holes and all the other stuff?
Huh? Do you equate these with religious doctrine? Do you think science just pulled these notions out of its hat, unevidenced?
I'll be nice, here is your one chance to prove evolution. Pick and argument in any subject, pick what side you'd like to have, I'll take the opposing one. Beat me and you prove evolution.
Well, how can one argue with such unassailable logic and methodology? :rolleyes:
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
Man you need to just trust me for once

Trust is not something you get for free. It has to be earned.
And so far, all you've done is giving me hundreds of reasons to do the opposite.

I brought up the hand is hot scenario as an example a young kid might experience and then know to avoid touching it. You turned it into how to build a stove. That had nothing to do with the scenario.

Your scenario completely missed the point.

Give me an example of how you personally used an explanation to predict the behavior of something

Dude.................................
Are you seriously asking how applied science is useable in everyday life?
For real?

Go ahead. Try and design anything without using any models that predict behavior of materials, processes, mechanics, of any kind...

Try to design a stove without using the predictions of how the encasing materials will react to the heat generated, without using predictions as to how to generate heat.

My prediction of this exercise is that you'll find yourself in the ER real fast, if not in a coffin. Or multiple coffins.
 
Top