Didn't know where

Discuss philosophical questions regarding theism (and atheism), and discuss religion as it relates to philosophy. This includes any philosophical discussions that happen to be about god, gods, or a 'higher power' or the belief of them. This also generally includes philosophical topics about organized or ritualistic mysticism or about organized, common or ritualistic beliefs in the existence of supernatural phenomenon.
Post Reply
Jack421
Posts: 18
Joined: January 14th, 2011, 2:16 am

Didn't know where

Post by Jack421 » July 18th, 2017, 1:27 am

I didn't know where to post this question but since it involves evolution I thought I could take both sides of the fence from people who argue intelligent
design. I am not saying I am against evolution or have problems with intelligent design. I firmly believe in Einstein idea of never ending energy as theory of relativity leading people to believe in a soul. Anyway here is the question below.

How do they know that dinosaurs are reptiles? How come they are not mammals like horses and elephants? How do they know from skeletons we evolve? Are they even sure the skeleton remains are not Dr. Zeus instead of evolved man. What people think evolution when people look at apes? Apes have never talked or built houses, but birds and other animals build nests. How are they sure the skeletons are evolved and not cross bred?

User avatar
Khacher
New Trial Member
Posts: 1
Joined: July 23rd, 2017, 1:30 am

Re: Didn't know where

Post by Khacher » July 23rd, 2017, 2:13 am

Hey,

I'm going to try to reply to the best of my ability because I'm not an evolutionary biologist or a paleontologist.

Dinosaurs are they're own type of animal, they are the ancestors of both reptiles and birds. For example a velociraptor was the ancestor of modern day birds, not reptiles. Other dinosaurs could be considered reptiles because of the way their bodies were structured. A mammal has mechanisms to trap internal heat to keep the body warm. From what I know of dinosaurs, they didn't have that. There is however a mystery as to why dinosaurs were warm-blooded, as most paleontologist now believe.

As far as evidence of evolution, I'm not too knowledgeable about the skeletons and the results determined by them, but the most convincing case for me is genetics. Looking at the genome of humans vs apes; humans have 23 chromosomes and apes have 24. At first glance this would seem to disprove evolution because a specie can't lose a chromosome, it would be disastrous in the evolutionary chain. However a closer look reveals that the apes' 2A and 2B chromosomes are the same chromosome as the 2 chromosome in humans, where the humans 2 chromosome is a perfect fusion of the 2A and 2B of the apes'.

Apes actually are very advanced to the point it scares me sometimes. Chimpanzees have been observed to have a concept of self, religion, and politics. They are obviously not as advanced as us, but that is probably due to the incredibly fast evolution of the pre-frontal cortex in humans, which I can't explain.

Please let me know if I'm wrong anywhere here, thanks!

User avatar
LuckyR
Posts: 2418
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Didn't know where

Post by LuckyR » July 24th, 2017, 4:54 am

The problem with this subject matter is folks who have spent essentially zero time studying these issues feel completely justified equating the fact that they cannot personally make sense of the conclusions with those who have spent their academic careers learning how current expert opinion was derived.
"As usual... it depends."

User avatar
GraphicsGuy
New Trial Member
Posts: 10
Joined: July 26th, 2017, 11:36 am

Re: Didn't know where

Post by GraphicsGuy » July 26th, 2017, 12:13 pm

Jack421 wrote:How do they know that dinosaurs are reptiles? How come they are not mammals like horses and elephants? How do they know from skeletons we evolve? Are they even sure the skeleton remains are not Dr. Zeus instead of evolved man. What people think evolution when people look at apes? Apes have never talked or built houses, but birds and other animals build nests. How are they sure the skeletons are evolved and not cross bred?
It all comes down to biology, taxonomy, zoology and years and years of research and learning and re-learning what "they" (scientists, paleontologists, etc.) know.

When I was a kid, brontosaurus was still a dinosaur and dinosaurs were definitely reptiles. However, mapping genomes and technology have allowed evolutionary theory to grow in leaps and bounds in the last few decades.

AronRa on YouTube has an amazing series on disproving Noah's Flood. He has the knowledge to answer your questions (I'm too new to the forum...can't post a link to the playlist. Just find AronRa's channel and go to his playlists).

User avatar
Ranvier
Posts: 538
Joined: February 12th, 2017, 1:47 pm
Location: USA

Re: Didn't know where

Post by Ranvier » August 29th, 2017, 12:33 am

LuckyR
LuckyR wrote:The problem with this subject matter is folks who have spent essentially zero time studying these issues feel completely justified equating the fact that they cannot personally make sense of the conclusions with those who have spent their academic careers learning how current expert opinion was derived.
As always, I respect your opinion but...

Wouldn't this be the same as... God told me so?

-- Updated August 29th, 2017, 12:41 am to add the following --

General

I would refer everyone's attention to Khacher's post. Genetics and carbon dating are the most reliable sources of information to ascertain evolutionary paths.
On the side note, it's possible that our common ancestor was a result of chromosomal "non-disjunction", similar to Dawn's syndrome in trisomy 21 chromosome

User avatar
Greta
Site Admin
Posts: 5780
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Didn't know where

Post by Greta » August 29th, 2017, 1:39 am

Ranvier wrote:
LuckyR wrote:The problem with this subject matter is folks who have spent essentially zero time studying these issues feel completely justified equating the fact that they cannot personally make sense of the conclusions with those who have spent their academic careers learning how current expert opinion was derived.
As always, I respect your opinion but...

Wouldn't this be the same as... God told me so?
You are playing Devil's Advocate and questioning what ostensibly looks like argument from authority. However, the situation today is more complex than in the days of innovative Greek thinkers exhorting a gormlessly gullible populace to "question everything".

Today, work functions and knowledge are so specialised that there is simply no choice but to trust experts (certainly more so than the speculative dabblers and desperate blinkered shouters who tend to dominate such conversations online). Once a polymath could be a high achiever in numerous fields - from art, astronomy, anatomy, chemistry, biology, music to engineering, maybe all at once like Leonardo. The bodies of knowledge are now so detailed and immense that mastery of many multiple topics (by today's standards) is not possible to anywhere near the same extent. Thus we need to trust experts, although double check where the logic seems jarring.

By contrast, much religious knowledge, such as may be required by a senior ranking Pharisee, is akin to in-house corporate knowledge - useful for the organisation but much less so outside of it. So in the real world, outside of the flock, "God told me" cannot compete with the work of experienced professionals like doctors, dentists, engineers, chemists, etc. Many biologists must have surely wondered why their expertise is so often treated as less valuable than those of other professionals.

User avatar
Ranvier
Posts: 538
Joined: February 12th, 2017, 1:47 pm
Location: USA

Re: Didn't know where

Post by Ranvier » August 29th, 2017, 2:05 am

Greta wrote: You are playing Devil's Advocate and questioning what ostensibly looks like argument from authority. Fair enough. However, look at what society is and has become. We are so specialised in our functions and knowledge that today there is simply no choice but to trust exemplars more than the speculative dabblers and desperate blinkered shouters who tend to dominate such conversations online.

How does "God told me so" work when contradicting the work of other experienced professionals like doctors, dentists, engineers, chemists, etc? Why would biologists' expertise be of less value than that of other professions?
Yes, I was playing the Devil's Advocate... ;)

We would be wise in learning all types of thought pertinent to any knowledge, without abandoning the reason to take things on faith alone. Including science. Someone has to keep the "seat hot" in the form of peer review to stimulate the progress in the right direction. Otherwise, we can end up with centuries of unchallenged religious faith or decades of dead end science.

User avatar
Greta
Site Admin
Posts: 5780
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Didn't know where

Post by Greta » August 29th, 2017, 2:16 am

What do you see as being "dead end science?

BTW, I did some editing while you were posting. Sorry, I'm rarely happy with what I write and always tweaking :)

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 712
Joined: December 1st, 2016, 2:23 am

Re: Didn't know where

Post by -1- » August 29th, 2017, 2:48 am

Ranvier wrote:. Someone has to keep the "seat hot" in the form of peer review to stimulate the progress in the right direction. Otherwise, we can end up with centuries of unchallenged religious faith or decades of dead end science.
This is true, Ranvier, but the way to do it is not to simply say with skepticism, "isn't this "God told you so"?".

This is a hugely reduced skepticism, in fact, so hugely, that its own mother would net recognize the science you apply it to.

Is p1v1t1=p2v2t2 spoken from authority? Is the conservation of energy and momentum a fact spoken form authority?

Geeze, these things have been measured and established.

So have the facts about dinosaurs.

Questioning the points that have been answered is pointless. Unless you can point at an internal error in the explanation, please don't doubt the scientists.

Of course questioning is helpful. But question only where you see problems with the logic, or with how theory may not fit reality, or with self-contradiction in the theory, or with incongruities in there.

Simply saying "I don't believe it" is fine for your (you being general, not particularly you personally, Ranvier) own understanding, and nobody can deny your right to not understand something, but just don't spread the theory that because you don't understand it, nobody else ought to be able to, either.

-----------

Brings me to the old Hungarian joke. A man from the countryside comes up to the big city, and he goes to the zoo. He stands in front of the cage for the giraffe. He looks the giraffe up and down, and finally he blurts out, "well, there is no such animal as this."

The lesson of the story is, that he could say that and validly so, if he heard someone who had been to the zoo and described the giraffe, without the listener having seen it. Then it makes sense; he can't accept the validity of the eyewitness, because the claim is so outrageous. But when he, himself, is looking at the giraffe, his incredulity ought not to stop from believing the existence of such unlikely creature. But it does.

I also used to have a friend, a dear friend, who in conversation, to test the strange thing I would occasionally tell him, would ask, "no... is that so? It cannot be so. Is that so?" I called this routine his reality testing and his acid-test for truth someone else claims.

It's a difficult thing with science. It either makes sense to you to some level, and beyond that you just accept it on faith, or you don't understand it on any level, and you reject it therefore in its entirety, or else you are a fundamentalist Christian and Muslim (yes, both at the same time (-: ) and you reject science due to its contradicting nature to your faith.

At any rate, understanding science relies on faith, and on how much faith, depends on the level of the knowledge of the dilettante. If the dilettante needs some reassurance that he is not following and idle worship when he believes the facts and theories of science, for instance, taught to him in grade seven or on an internet forum, then that dilettante could ask himself, "does my telephone work? My computer? My heater, my water tap in the washroom and in the kitchen, my tv and my wife? Does food nourish me, does poison kill me, and does whatever do whatever else?" If any question remains after that that these objects, developed on science and technology, do work, then you can ask the scientist, "is your statement not like a declaration by god's decree?" No, it is not.
"You can always live without a lover, but you can't love without a liver."

User avatar
LuckyR
Posts: 2418
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Didn't know where

Post by LuckyR » August 29th, 2017, 3:19 am

-1- wrote:
Ranvier wrote:. Someone has to keep the "seat hot" in the form of peer review to stimulate the progress in the right direction. Otherwise, we can end up with centuries of unchallenged religious faith or decades of dead end science.
This is true, Ranvier, but the way to do it is not to simply say with skepticism, "isn't this "God told you so"?".

This is a hugely reduced skepticism, in fact, so hugely, that its own mother would net recognize the science you apply it to.

Is p1v1t1=p2v2t2 spoken from authority? Is the conservation of energy and momentum a fact spoken form authority?

Geeze, these things have been measured and established.

So have the facts about dinosaurs.

Questioning the points that have been answered is pointless. Unless you can point at an internal error in the explanation, please don't doubt the scientists.

Of course questioning is helpful. But question only where you see problems with the logic, or with how theory may not fit reality, or with self-contradiction in the theory, or with incongruities in there.

Simply saying "I don't believe it" is fine for your (you being general, not particularly you personally, Ranvier) own understanding, and nobody can deny your right to not understand something, but just don't spread the theory that because you don't understand it, nobody else ought to be able to, either.

-----------

Brings me to the old Hungarian joke. A man from the countryside comes up to the big city, and he goes to the zoo. He stands in front of the cage for the giraffe. He looks the giraffe up and down, and finally he blurts out, "well, there is no such animal as this."

The lesson of the story is, that he could say that and validly so, if he heard someone who had been to the zoo and described the giraffe, without the listener having seen it. Then it makes sense; he can't accept the validity of the eyewitness, because the claim is so outrageous. But when he, himself, is looking at the giraffe, his incredulity ought not to stop from believing the existence of such unlikely creature. But it does.

I also used to have a friend, a dear friend, who in conversation, to test the strange thing I would occasionally tell him, would ask, "no... is that so? It cannot be so. Is that so?" I called this routine his reality testing and his acid-test for truth someone else claims.

It's a difficult thing with science. It either makes sense to you to some level, and beyond that you just accept it on faith, or you don't understand it on any level, and you reject it therefore in its entirety, or else you are a fundamentalist Christian and Muslim (yes, both at the same time (-: ) and you reject science due to its contradicting nature to your faith.

At any rate, understanding science relies on faith, and on how much faith, depends on the level of the knowledge of the dilettante. If the dilettante needs some reassurance that he is not following and idle worship when he believes the facts and theories of science, for instance, taught to him in grade seven or on an internet forum, then that dilettante could ask himself, "does my telephone work? My computer? My heater, my water tap in the washroom and in the kitchen, my tv and my wife? Does food nourish me, does poison kill me, and does whatever do whatever else?" If any question remains after that that these objects, developed on science and technology, do work, then you can ask the scientist, "is your statement not like a declaration by god's decree?" No, it is not.
If you are an expert in something, anything even in mowing lawns, say for a golf course, then you know what an expert opinion is and what goes into acquiring it. OTOH, if you are not an expert in something then you have no reference point to measure the difference between opinion (which everyone has) and expert opinion, which obviously only a few possess. Thus it seems perfectly justified to chime in on a subject that you have not studied with your seat of the pants ideas.
"As usual... it depends."

User avatar
Ranvier
Posts: 538
Joined: February 12th, 2017, 1:47 pm
Location: USA

Re: Didn't know where

Post by Ranvier » September 9th, 2017, 6:29 am

General

What I meant to say in my Devils's Advocate sarcasm, was that we may do well to respect the expert opinion on any topic but everything should always be questioned extensively. Even as a child I realized that nobody "knows" anything with an absolute certainty and those who claim to "know" are immediately a subject for scrutiny. For instance, I have a great respect for Neil Tyson DeGrasse but when he tells us that we "know" how the universe came to exist at BB, we should be left with... really? Or when Dawkins states that evolution is a proof that life emerged spontaneously and therefore there is no need for "God", we should also say... really? Everyone is allowed to have their personal beliefs but when science is used as dogma of blind faith in "expert" opinion, then I'll say... really?

Greta

The "dead end science" was perhaps a little harsh, there is always a value in learning even through failures and mistakes. However, I don't see the String Theory as a unification into the Grand Theory of Everything. General Relativity has a great value, as does the Newtonian physics that we still use to send satellites into space but neither does a particularly good job in explaining the gravity.

Spectrum
Posts: 4501
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: Didn't know where

Post by Spectrum » September 12th, 2017, 11:25 pm

Ranvier wrote:For instance, I have a great respect for Neil Tyson DeGrasse but when he tells us that we "know" how the universe came to exist at BB, we should be left with... really? Or when Dawkins states that evolution is a proof that life emerged spontaneously and therefore there is no need for "God", we should also say... really? Everyone is allowed to have their personal beliefs but when science is used as dogma of blind faith in "expert" opinion, then I'll say... really?
I have not come across Neil Tyson DeGrasse nor Dawkins claiming absolute certainty for any theories of Science.
Neil Tyson DeGrasse or Dawkins may not have been specific but their default view is never a claim for absolute certainty. Dawkins is something like a 7/8 agnostic God do not exists leaving 1/8 possibility [I am 99.99% certain God do not exists].

In general the default and principles of Science is never claiming absolute certainty as the general rule is to leave room for uncertainty and the possibility of new theories to replace the old one, i.e. it must be falsifiable.
Instead to reference to truth, Popper claimed Scientific Theories are merely 'polished conjectures' with room for finer polishing.

So if you suspect any Scientist of claiming absolute 100% certainty [when they should not] you should research and investigate for more details before jumping to accuse them.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.

Post Reply