I wonder if fish have a soul??
I wonder if fish have a soul??
Religion is poison because it asks us to give up our most precious faculty, which is that of reason, and to believe things without evidence. It then asks us to respect this, which it calls faith. - Christopher Hitchens
Your theory that we should just accept everything in science as fact without challenging it is unscientific. In order to progress in science it is important we are critical of theories.
Here are some scientists who have differing opinions then Einstein when it comes to whether or not the speed of light has stayed constant since the beginning of time. There theories are not ridiculous.
I know that I keep recommending that you go out and buy textbooks, but it's because you keep making statements like these. The study of modern and factual psychology is rooted in the structure and function of the body. We have sensation and perception because of our physiology. We have emotions because our bodies react to stimuli. We handle complex situations in complex ways because of an interaction of more simple psychological factors. No reason has been presented (on this thread, at least) to assume that "the mind" is something that transcends the body.Psychology is more then the study of applied biology. What differentiates psychology from biology and neuroscience is that it is primarily concerned with the mind rather then the brain.
A better way of rephrasing your statements is, "I have a crock of bull to sell you".The variables and factors I am referring to are philosophical and spiritual. There is no point explaining these variables and factors to you, however, unless you have some sort of agreement with them. Otherwise the debate never gets anyway. A better way of rephrasing my statement is that in theory there are variables and factors not dealt with biologically that define humans.
The fossil evidence we have is absolutely sufficient to presume that we evolved from primates. If it weren't the DNA evidence further supports this conclusion.I am not questioning evidence as a viable source for coming to conclusions. The evidence for evolution depends to large extent on fossils. I am not questioning whether or not fossils are a viable form of evidence even. I am stating the exact opposite. I am questioning whether the evidence we have in terms of fossils is sufficient to prove humans evolved from primates.
Wrong. We are unable to observe changes in the speed of light in a vacuum because there are no such changes. The Michelson-Morley experiment in fact disproved the idea that light's speed could be relative. This invariable c (the speed of light in a vacuum, as the speed of propagation through different mediums is different) is the cornerstone of special relativity and indirectly of general relativity.It is impossible for me to claim such a thing because I never even referred to the speed of light. We have a very accurate metre to measure the speed of light in the present. For example, two scientists Michelson and Morley conducted an experiment in which they observed any change in the speed of light in relation to the earth's change in direction relative to the sun. They were unable to find any change in the speed of light. We are able to observe such changes here and now.
I am not proposing we accept established theories without question. I am proposing that we follow the evidence to its logical conclusions. The evidence we have available leads to the mainstream theories in science, such as the idea that the universe is 14 billion years old, that the Earth is 4 billion, and that humans evolved from primates. The evidence is 100% in support of these conclusions. Any arguments against these conclusions are not taking the evidence properly into account.Your theory that we should just accept everything in science as fact without challenging it is unscientific. In order to progress in science it is important we are critical of theories.
You should re-read those two articles and ask yourself if what they are proposing would support young-earth creationism. I'll give you a hint: it wouldn't. The second article even says right at the top that photons with varying speeds at the quantum level would not violate the principles of relativity.Here are some scientists who have differing opinions then Einstein when it comes to whether or not the speed of light has stayed constant since the beginning of time. There theories are not ridiculous.
True, I was wrong.There are times when it is good to be technical and there are other times when you should let things go. Oppenheimer was not pretty much an engineer. He was a theoretical physicist. He taught theory at Berkeley. He created and contributed to theories.
It is impossible for me to claim such a thing because I never even referred to the radioactive elements used to establish the earth. Anyways radioactive dating is a very simple process. We measure the number of atoms when a rock is formed and then the number in the rock now and calculate the age using the decay constant. It's a very simple process. It's much simpler then determining whether or not humans evolved from primates.So, when you claim thatThanks for the science lecture but I am not questioning the age of the universe.You aren't questioning the age of the universe and (by extension) the age of the Earth? What exactly do you mean by this sentence then?Evolutionists who say that humans took 14 billions to arise are using inductive processes based on shady ground.
A summary from the Wikipedia page on human evolution: The evidence for human evolution is found in many fields of natural science. Much of this evidence is in the fossil record, although genetics is now playing an ever-increasing and complementary role. The studies of ontogeny, phylogeny and especially evolutionary developmental biology of both vertebrates and invertebrates offer considerable insight into the evolution of all life, including how humans evolved. The specific study of the origin and life of humans is anthropology, with paleoanthropology of particular interest.You didn't answer my question. Explain to me how specifically the evidence (fossils and such) we have prove that humans evolved from primates.
In hominids, the fossil record shows the progressive straightening of the spine, the increase in brain volume, changes in facial features towards being more gracile, and a reduction in the muscles of mastication with a concomitant change in dentition.
The tail becomes incorporated into the pelvis as the sacrum in higher primates. All vertebrates have a tail at one point in their development; in humans, it is present for a period of four weeks, during stages 14 to 22 of human embryogenesis. Humans have a non-functional third eyelid, the plica semilunaris. Humans also have external ear muscles, which animals use to swivel and manipulate their ears (independently of their head) to focus their hearing on particular sounds. Humans still have remnants of such muscles, but they are now feeble and now are capable only of slightly wiggling the ear.
The plantaris muscle also serves as evidence of human evolution. The plantaris muscle is used by animals in gripping and manipulating objects with their feet, for example apes, who can use their feet as well as their hands for gripping. Humans have a corresponding muscle, but it is now so underdeveloped that it is often taken out by doctors when they need tissue for reconstruction in other parts of the body. The muscle is so unimportant to the human body that 9% of humans are now born without it. Other evidence includes Jacobson's organ, which is a part of animal anatomy, and which could figure in the sexual prehistory of humans. This organ, located in the nasal passage, detects pheromones (the chemical that triggers sexual desire, alarm, or information about food trails). This organ allows some animals to track others for sex and to warn of potential dangers. Humans are born with the Jacobson’s organ, but in early development its abilities dwindle to a point that it is useless. In some cases, structures once identified as vestigial simply had an unrecognized function. Wisdom teeth serve as evidence of evolution; human ancestors ate a lot of plants, and they needed to eat them quickly enough that they could eat a sufficient amount in one day to get the necessary nutrition. For this reason they had an extra set of molars to make the larger mouth more productive. This was particularly essential as the body lacked the ability to sufficiently digest cellulose. As evolution made its selections, human dietary patterns changed, the jaw became smaller, and the third molar was not as necessary.
We also share large percentages of our DNA with our immediate relations the Great Apes.
It is not difficult to research the evidence for human evolution and for evolution in general. Perhaps you should purchase a biology textbook after all.
The entire taxonomic classification of animals is based on the family ties which link all species. Those species which are more closely related are more closely related in evolutionary time. How closely related two species are is defined by how recently their most recent common ancestor lived. All primates including humans have a most recent common ancestor about 65 million years ago.
There are different wells within us.
Some fill with each good rain,
Others are far, far too deep
An equitable exchange of giving as measured by that which benefits the other. This exchange is mediated by the husband since he is much less likely to be duped or misled by 'evil.'
Perhaps you should read Feeling Good by David Burns
Philosophy and spirituality are human experiences and thought processes explored by both theists and non theists.
Last edited by truthreality; 9th May 2012 at 09:39 PM.
As a product of the brain the ego is tied to our physiology. Brain damaged people suffer many changes to their personalities including their egos.Well the ego also defines what a humans is. The ego is not an aspect of anatomy or physiology.
The mind is a term that's poorly understood and defined. It usually is used to refer to the collective output of brain activity. It's source is the brain, just like emotions. As confirmation of this I challenge you to provide a definitive and scientifically accepted definition of mind which doesn't include the brain.Thoughts are not result of biological factors but rather the mind.
The Forum Rules
Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.
[John F. Kennedy]
The principal value of debate lies in the development of logical thought processes, and the ability to articulate your positions publicly.
[Senator Dick Clark of Iowa]
The presence of those seeking the truth is infinitely to be preferred to the presence of those who think they've found it.