(May 23, 2020 at 11:25 pm)Anomalocaris Wrote: In science we separate the beginning from the theory of evolution for the same reason we separate Physical chemistry, organic chemistry and quantum chemistry from each Other - so we can specialize and more quickly further deeper understanding of different facets of the very same underlying natural phenomenons.
There may be some truth to that, but I think there is a much simpler answer. I would say that we separate "the beginning" from the theory of evolution because the latter is about the origin of species—in other words, the theory of evolution presupposes life. The origin of life is one thing, the origin of species is another. Regardless of how life originated, it has nevertheless evolved.
(May 23, 2020 at 11:25 pm)Anomalocaris Wrote: Can you truly be so profoundly ignorant that you would think your stridently moronic rhetorical question can possibly solicit anything but uproarious laughter?
I don't agree that the question is somehow moronic, nor that it's rhetorical. But, hey, enjoy your laughter.
(May 23, 2020 at 11:25 pm)Anomalocaris Wrote: If so, then for your own good Shut the fuck up, trash can your bible, and get a real education.
For my own good? Is there some kind of problem with asking questions and exploring answers?
(May 23, 2020 at 11:25 pm)Anomalocaris Wrote: Like all morons totally blinded by the Bible, you Use such elements of what you conceive to be science that you imagine you’ve graspEd the very same way any totally blind man uses a lamp post, for support, not illumination.
Yeah? And where exactly have I done that? Where have I used poorly conceived science for support rather than illumination?
(May 23, 2020 at 11:54 pm)Belacqua Wrote: Evolution is about one thing changing into another thing.
Broadly speaking, yes. But notice that I said "the theory of evolution," which I assumed people would understand as that specific theory formerly understood as Darwinian. So I think we're on the same page as long as the changing "thing" you talked about is biological species.
(May 23, 2020 at 11:54 pm)Belacqua Wrote: If we specify a particular thing, then it makes sense to talk about a beginning in terms of evolution. So, if the question is "when did human beings begin?", then once we have a workable definition of "human being" we can talk about how they evolved. How humans branched off from non-humans.
If we stand back far enough, sure. It's pretty easy to tell the difference between "yellow" (Australopithecus afarensis) and "green" (Homo sapiens). But the closer you look at human evolution, the harder it is to tell. Is that one a yellowish-green or a greenish-yellow? At some point discerning the difference becomes nearly impossible. What I mean by this illustration is that I don't think there was "first" human being, so to speak, a specific point where we could say, "That population, right there, that's when human beings began." That would be my answer, at least, if someone asked me that question. Thoughts?
(May 23, 2020 at 11:54 pm)Belacqua Wrote: For many of the regular posters on this forum, the inherent opposition of religion to science is part of their credo. It doesn't matter how many facts from history you post to show otherwise, they just know it's true.
I'll learn pretty quickly who's oblivious to reason and evidence. Until then, I'm going to step in it from time to time.
Cheers, mate.
