The theory of evolution HOAX

[notimportant1234]

I agree that we shouldn't think much on things like "Does God exist?". But to say that something doesn't exist because we can't define it sounds ilogical . It's likr saying , the things that we can perceive with our unevolved minds are the only things that exist.( I'm not reffering just to God)

For the purpose of dividing things into the categories of "things we know" and "things we don't know", this is correct.  What are you suggesting?  Are you suggesting that we slot things that "might be true" into the category of things known?  We can only build upon our senses and the capacity of our minds.  The rest is pointless speculation.

No , I'm saying that things that "might be true" should be reaserched, if something is too complex for our understanding , we should start by trying to solve the problems in our reach and get to the big problems . Or you are lucky and imagination does the jump for you and then you just have to see if it's real or delusion.

---

I agree that we shouldn't think much on things like "Does God exist?". But to say that something doesn't exist because we can't define it sounds ilogical . It's likr saying , the things that we can perceive with our unevolved minds are the only things that exist.( I'm not reffering just to God)

It's more like saying we shouldn't believe in things we just make up from our imaginations. If they actually exist, it's just a coincidence. I don't know for a fact and can't prove that glowing red goats with tails like kangaroos and wheels instead of hooves don't exist somewhere in the universe, but that's not a good reason to think they do. In fact, it's a terrible reason to think they do.

You should believe the things that come from your imagination, but use logic to see if they are delusions.

[I_am_not_mafia]

You should believe the things that come from your imagination, but use logic to see if they are delusions.

It would be better not to believe anything until you have enough evidence to come up with a hypothesis using logic.

Logic is pointless without evidence from the real world to apply it to .

[notimportant1234]

You should believe the things that come from your imagination, but use logic to see if they are delusions.

It would be better not to believe anything until you have enough evidence to come up with a hypothesis using logic.

Logic is pointless without evidence from the real world to apply it to .

If you don't believe it , from where will the drive to pursue the ideea come ?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

It would be better not to believe anything until you have enough evidence to come up with a hypothesis using logic.

Logic is pointless without evidence from the real world to apply it to .

If you don't believe it , from where will the drive to pursue the ideea come ?

I would say that I wouldn't promote the idea until I had evidence to support it. If my research showed there was something to the idea then I'd keep at it. If careful study showed it to be a dead end, I'd move on.

[notimportant1234]

If you don't believe it , from where will the drive to pursue the ideea come ?

I would say that I wouldn't promote the idea until I had evidence to support it. If my research showed there was something to the idea then I'd keep at it. If careful study showed it to be a dead end, I'd move on.

Didn't sayed anything about promoting.That could work in some situations but sometimes you need to be the crazy motherfucker and go at it without doubt . If I think better now , scientist are some of the most altruist persons , willingly sacrificing their lives to provide us answers.

[I_am_not_mafia]

It would be better not to believe anything until you have enough evidence to come up with a hypothesis using logic.

Logic is pointless without evidence from the real world to apply it to .

If you don't believe it , from where will the drive to pursue the ideea come ?

You can have ideas without believing in them. People can believe that an idea is plausible for example without believing or knowing whether or not it actually is correct.

[Mister Agenda]

It would be better not to believe anything until you have enough evidence to come up with a hypothesis using logic.

Logic is pointless without evidence from the real world to apply it to .

If you don't believe it , from where will the drive to pursue the ideea come ?

For some reason, I don't need to believe my ideas are actually true in order to have them or have the drive to pursue them, if they seem significant enough and probable given what I already know. Frankly, I don't know how not to have ideas.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I would say that I wouldn't promote the idea until I had evidence to support it. If my research showed there was something to the idea then I'd keep at it. If careful study showed it to be a dead end, I'd move on.

Didn't sayed anything about promoting.That could work in some situations but sometimes you need to be the crazy motherfucker and go at it without doubt . If I think better now , scientist are some of the most altruist persons , willingly sacrificing their lives to provide us answers.

You don't understand what I meant by "promoting". In science it means you write about it and seek funding for further research. And you have to allow for doubt, it's part of the process.

[Harry Nevis]

You should believe the things that come from your imagination, but use logic to see if they are delusions.

So we should believe delusions?

---

It would be better not to believe anything until you have enough evidence to come up with a hypothesis using logic.

Logic is pointless without evidence from the real world to apply it to .

If you don't believe it , from where will the drive to pursue the ideea come ?

Curiosity?

---

I would say that I wouldn't promote the idea until I had evidence to support it. If my research showed there was something to the idea then I'd keep at it. If careful study showed it to be a dead end, I'd move on.

Didn't sayed anything about promoting.That could work in some situations but sometimes you need to be the crazy motherfucker and go at it without doubt . If I think better now , scientist are some of the most altruist persons , willingly sacrificing their lives to provide us answers.

So you can decide that you have no doubt? I think you're enough crazy motherfucker for all of us.

[notimportant1234]

If you don't believe it , from where will the drive to pursue the ideea come ?

You can have ideas without believing in them. People can believe that an idea is plausible for example without believing or knowing whether or not it actually is correct.

Of course you can have ideas without believing in them. It's like this , you come up with an ideea only after that you can judge it , or chose to believe it or not , chosing to not believe it will end it .

---

You should believe the things that come from your imagination, but use logic to see if they are delusions.

So we should believe delusions?

---

If you don't believe it , from where will the drive to pursue the ideea come ?

Curiosity?

---

Didn't sayed anything about promoting.That could work in some situations but sometimes you need to be the crazy motherfucker and go at it without doubt . If I think better now , scientist are some of the most altruist persons , willingly sacrificing their lives to provide us answers.

So you can decide that you have no doubt? I think you're enough crazy motherfucker for all of us.

1. When I say " use logic to see if thei are delusions" you understand that you should believe delusions ?
2. If you say an ideea is false, how can curiosity drive you ?
3.I didn't sayed that I have no doubt , but sometimes you may need more than 100 experiments for example to prove something , it may be in vain it may be not.