Which evolved first --- FRUIT BEARING TREES or FRUIT EATING CREATURES?

[Sapiens]

I implied nothing of the sort, I demonstrated the possibility. You walked out over a cliff in your rush to willfully misunderstand and erect a stawman, have a nice fall.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I implied nothing of the sort, I demonstrated the possibility. You walked out over a cliff in your rush to willfully misunderstand and erect a stawman, have a nice fall.

Not a strawman....I agreed with your mathematical equation...I said this....."True....but mathematics is merely a finite mind's conceptualization....and in this case, there is no nothing in existence....", meaning that it doesn't apply to the real world as there is no nothing...

Numbers, like all symbols are not real things, they do represent real things in communicating ideas, etc., but the real is always on the other side. Unfortunately many people are not consciously aware of this and eventually take concepts as being the same thing as that they merely symbolize...all sorts of confusion then ensues...

 

[Kuzcotopia]

I say what i mean and mean what I say...if you don't understand what I'm saying....it prob because you lack the prerequisite understanding....so don't wast my time with the scientific method strawman.....

I don't do beliefs.....I do understanding....and there's the rub, you apparently do belief...

Okay, but this is your second post directly to me on the matter of defining the scientific method. With all due respect, you could have defined it in the same amount of time. And no, it's not a strawman. I'm drawing your understanding based on the errant conclusions your seem to have about the scientific method is and how it works.

By formally defining it, there cannot be a strawman. Why so cagey? What's so wrong with explaining what it is and how you believe the methods of scientific inquiry works?

Until you define it for me, I'll just say you don't understand it based on the claims you have made. Either let it stand, or deal with it.

 

[Kuzcotopia]

Not a strawman....I agreed with your mathematical equation...I said this....."True....but mathematics is merely a finite mind's conceptualization....and in this case, there is no nothing in existence....", meaning that it doesn't apply to the real world as there is no nothing...

Numbers, like all symbols are not real things, they do represent real things in communicating ideas, etc., but the real is always on the other side. Unfortunately many people are not consciously aware of this and eventually take concepts as being the same thing as that they merely symbolize...all sorts of confusion then ensues...

Emphasis mine. Now that's a Strawman. That's how it works. Who are these "many people"?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Okay, but this is your second post directly to me on the matter of defining the scientific method. With all due respect, you could have defined it in the same amount of time. And no, it's not a strawman. I'm drawing your understanding based on the errant conclusions your seem to have about the scientific method is and how it works.

By formally defining it, there cannot be a strawman. Why so cagey? What's so wrong with explaining what it is and how you believe the methods of scientific inquiry works?

Until you define it for me, I'll just say you don't understand it based on the claims you have made. Either let it stand, or deal with it.

The scientific method, is the postulation of a falsifiable hypothesis, then testing it empirically with repeatable results....

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Emphasis mine. Now that's a Strawman. That's how it works. Who are these "many people"?

No that's not a strawman...it's just an passing observation, and was not intended to draw attention away from the main focus about the absence of nothing in the real world.. If you want to discuss it as a separate issue...I have no problem....the many people are all those people who mistake their conceptual beliefs for reality...




STAIF II — The Space Technology & Applications International Forum

 

[Monk Of Reason]

And there is some physicists who are producing peer reviewed papers that suggest an infinite and eternal universe.....

Indeed. I don't really see how this is totally relevant. There are any number of theories about the vast unknown. Most if not all will be wrong.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Indeed. I don't really see how this is totally relevant. There are any number of theories about the vast unknown. Most if not all will be wrong.

But that's science...build a reasoned guess....eh..hypothesis...if it is published, it will be considered by other scientists. But what's your point?

 

[Monk Of Reason]

But that's science...build a reasoned guess....eh..hypothesis...if it is published, it will be considered by other scientists. But what's your point?

Your original point was some kind of reasoning for a need for god. I stated that your reasoning was similar to some reasoning that led to the development of the multiverse theory. And then you came back with some response about there being theories that teh universe is eternal. And ...so what?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Your original point was some kind of reasoning for a need for god. I stated that your reasoning was similar to some reasoning that led to the development of the multiverse theory. And then you came back with some response about there being theories that teh universe is eternal. And ...so what?

I have no idea where you got that idea from...please provide a reference...about the need for a god that is?

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I have no idea where you got that idea from...please provide a reference...about the need for a god that is?

I probably misread it.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I probably misread it.

Yes...but fwiw...the concept of God to my understanding is that it represent the reality for all that exists..and that existence is infinite and eternal...

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Did the fruit bearing trees evolve first or did the creatures who ate those fruits evolve first? And just how did the trees LEARN that they had to produce fruits so that creatures ate them and thus their seeds were spread far and wide to produce more trees?

Is this a serious question? I only ask because the fruit is there to fall with the seed and produce a nutrient-rich substance for the seed to thrive in - usually because bacteria (in the soil before there were plants) eat it/ferment it and give off gases and substances that are nutritious to the forming plant. Originally, fruit did not "become present" to be helpful to anything but the plant. You may think a banana is oh so conveniently packaged for your consumption - but that couldn't further from the truth of why a banana is a banana. Fruit may have evolved to become something different over time. That is, with animal "hosts" in play within the environment, some fruits may have been seen to be better suited as a transportation mechanism - eaten by an animal and carried off to some distant location, thereby spreading the range of the plant's domain. Not that the plant was "aware" of this, of course. This turn of events, as it were, was simply the most advantageous and produced the most viable offspring that were then tailored (over the course of, likely, millions of years) to the purpose.

In the end - fruit was there first. Period. No single reason to even question this.