|
Blind faith and evolution
|
 Quote:Humans are Homo Sapiens. Homo Erectus was not human. Until we get a sample of HE dna we will not be certain of that. It was only a few years ago that the Neanderthal Genome Project demonstrated that HSS and HNS had interbred. People are too quick to throw the word "species" around. 
I guess what it comes down to is that, even if that ends up being true, what is this obscure point he's trying to make?
Humans started evolving 100,000 years ago vs humans started evolving 1 million years ago. So what?  (August 17, 2013 at 9:14 am)enrico Wrote: I am not asking anything.On a rainbow, where exactly does red change into blue? Our evolution probably starts with the first microorganisms on earth-- and even limiting it to that is pretty arbitrary. So what? Quote:I am saying that people who criticize me don't even know the real meaning of philosophy the forum in which they post.I know the meaning. Philosophy means "love of wisdom." So what?  (August 17, 2013 at 6:22 pm)bennyboy Wrote: I know the meaning. Philosophy means "love of wisdom." So what? Wrong! It means that if your philosophy doesn't agree with Enrico's then you don't know shit. 
Save a life. Adopt a greyhound.
![[Image: JUkLw58.gif]](https://i.imgur.com/JUkLw58.gif)
 (August 17, 2013 at 10:37 am)Minimalist Wrote:Quote:Humans are Homo Sapiens. Homo Erectus was not human. If there is one thing that Darwin teaches us it is that there are only assemblies of genes, interacting at random with each other and their shifting environments. 'Species' are drifts in the genetic tide that will pass as easily as they arrived. The idea of 'species' is an abstract notion we assume science has made concrete. MM
"The greatest deception men suffer is from their own opinions" - Leonardo da Vinci
"I think I use the term “radical” rather loosely, just for emphasis. If you describe yourself as “atheist,” some people will say, “Don’t you mean ‘agnostic’?” I have to reply that I really do mean atheist, I really do not believe that there is a god; in fact, I am convinced that there is not a god (a subtle difference). I see not a shred of evidence to suggest that there is one ... etc., etc. It’s easier to say that I am a radical atheist, just to signal that I really mean it, have thought about it a great deal, and that it’s an opinion I hold seriously." - Douglas Adams (and I echo the sentiment)  RE: Blind faith and evolution
August 18, 2013 at 3:10 am
(This post was last modified: August 18, 2013 at 3:33 am by Little Rik.)
Quote:Enrico...........Who said that they were the same? Quote:Chas.........No, they are both in the genus Homo. That's funny. You propose a link.........http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo.........and then you do not even read it properly. In the wiki link it say............. In biological sciences, particularly anthropology and palaeontology, the common name for all members of the genus Homo is "human". The word homo is Latin, in the original sense of "human being", or "man" (in the gender-neutral sense). The word "human" itself is from Latin humanus, an adjective cognate to homo, both thought to derive from a Proto-Indo-European word for "earth" reconstructed as *dhǵhem- I rest my case.  (August 17, 2013 at 6:22 pm)bennyboy Wrote: I know the meaning. Philosophy means "love of wisdom." So what? Bravo  love of wisdom meaning can be found almost everywhere. It is just the translation from the Greek word so no big deal there.What i would like to know from you guys is the real meaning of love of wisdom. 1) What is wisdom? Is total knowledge or limited knowledge? 2)Can be found within this limited arena (physical world) or need to go outside his limits? 3) Does wisdom give only knowledge or it come hand in hand with happiness as the word LOVE state? 4) What sort of love are we talking about? 5) What is the difference between Al Capone philosophy and Sadashiva philosophy? 
What do you mean by "total knowledge"?
You can fix ignorance, you can't fix stupid. Tinkety Tonk and down with the Nazis.  RE: Blind faith and evolution
August 18, 2013 at 5:25 am
(This post was last modified: August 18, 2013 at 5:32 am by Edwardo Piet.)
Knowledge is absolute anyway, in a sense, if that is what he means, unless it is relative evidence (i.e. not proof) or information (rather than proof or true awareness of something truly real). That is, someone could correctly call that (evidence or information) relative knowledge, perhaps. I mean, I reckon that that would be a semantic matter after all anyway, I think.
(August 18, 2013 at 5:25 am)EvidenceVersusFaith Wrote: Knowledge is absolute anyway, in a sense, if that is what he means, unless it is relative evidence (i.e. not proof) or information (rather than proof or true awareness of something truly real). That is, someone could correctly call that (evidence or information) relative knowledge, perhaps. I mean, I reckon that that would be a semantic matter after all anyway, I think. I thought he might mean knowing everything about everything. But it is such a woolly phrase you can project many meanings onto it. You can fix ignorance, you can't fix stupid. Tinkety Tonk and down with the Nazis.
Agreed. Fuckin' vague semantical nonsensicality!
|
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
