The theories of the Universe

Iron Maiden

Iron Maiden

Paragon of Bacon
Orange Room Supporter
If you acknowledge that parts of a scientific theory can be disproved, then there is nothing wrong with LVV finding parts of evolution theory more credible than others. Especially if the less credible parts have missing links.
When it gets disproved, i wil gladly follow suit, my message to LVV was about either one adopts a theory or looks for mistakes in it, but u cant cherry pick your way, Around it, in that case you just say i dont believe in that model.

Or else the whole system would break down, do u want to break down the system indie? Do you?

 
  • Advertisement
  • Indie

    Indie

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    Yea cool article i read a similar study too, here’s how i see it, from everything i watched/read around the subject:
    - most of the stories of the OT are geologically and historically traceable, and noah’s flood is dated to around 8000 years BC when the great canada/Greenland ice lake burst and destroyed many low lands based civilizations.
    Massive Canadian melt may have triggered flood of biblical proportions
    PS: not the link i was looking for but it gives u an idea.

    - the study in ur article points more to a lack of diversity in our genome than a single binary source of human dna. But let me ask you anotjer question, if we follow the genesis theory of creation, do you think that our species would hav survived and thrived through vast amounts of really close in-breeding?
    As Catholics, we are not taught to take genesis 100% literally; but, rather, as a simplified representation of how the world and humanity was created.

    So...I don't venture into pronouncing myself on detailed scientific specifics. I just believe that the stories in the Bible and science are not mutually exclusive. The former expresses our reality in a literary form, while the latter looks for technical explanations.
     
    Indie

    Indie

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    When it gets disproved, i wil gladly follow suit, my message to LVV was about either one adopts a theory or looks for mistakes in it, but u cant cherry pick your way, Around it, in that case you just say i dont believe in that model.

    Or else the whole system would break down, do u want to break down the system indie? Do you?

    If the system doesn't break down when parts of a theory are actually proven false, why should it break down if someone hypothetically declares parts of a theory false?

    Do @LVV 's hypothetical repudiations have more power than proven scientific repudiations?

     
    Isabella

    Isabella

    The queen of "Bazella"
    Orange Room Supporter
    As Catholics, we are not taught to take genesis 100% literally; but, rather, as a simplified representation of how the world and humanity was created.

    So...I don't venture into pronouncing myself on detailed scientific specifics. I just believe that the stories in the Bible and science are not mutually exclusive. The former expresses our reality in a literary form, while the latter looks for technical explanations.
    I was always taught - in catechism in catholic school- that the creation story was an allegory.

    The catholic church has nothing against evolution.

    And since I don't want to quote you twice, the missing link thing is used to indicate a "problem" with evolution, there is no problem! If the LCA is not found that doesn't mean we are no longer sister species with apes, because genetically speaking we actually are! Nor does it mean that evolution is faulty. It just means we haven't really found our common ancestor yet and that's okay! And it definitely doesn't mean that evolution is mostly rubbish as lvv put it so no he's not correct! At the very least there is something wrong with his statement
     
    Iron Maiden

    Iron Maiden

    Paragon of Bacon
    Orange Room Supporter
    If the system doesn't break down when parts of a theory are actually proven false, why should it break down if someone hypothetically declares parts of a theory false?

    Do @LVV 's hypothetical repudiations have more power than proven scientific repudiations?

    Thats not what i meant by the system woul break down, i meant the scientific method in which one postulated a model, provides empirical data to back it and then its peer reviewed accepted as correct, or refuted with counter measurments and such.

    Thats the system am defending :)
    That system doesnt allow to take parts of a model as true while disregarding the others.

    And am sure that as time goes one all these models wevare duscussing will be patched/upgraded/replaced by more accurate ones and i for one will be content when it happens!
     
    Indie

    Indie

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    If the LCA is not found that doesn't mean we are no longer sister species with apes, because genetically speaking we actually are! Nor does it mean that evolution is faulty. It just means we haven't really found our common ancestor yet and that's okay!
    It can also mean that there is no common ancestor. Scientists must be open to all possibilities.

    We have genetic similarities to lobsters as well. That doesn't mean we evolved from lobsters.
     
    Indie

    Indie

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    Thats not what i meant by the system woul break down, i meant the scientific method in which one postulated a model, provides empirical data to back it and then its peer reviewed accepted as correct, or refuted with counter measurments and such.

    Thats the system am defending :)
    That system doesnt allow to take parts of a model as true while disregarding the others.

    And am sure that as time goes one all these models wevare duscussing will be patched/upgraded/replaced by more accurate ones and i for one will be content when it happens!
    If a model can be patched or upgraded, then it means parts of it are kept while others are discarded or replaced, correct?
     
    Iron Maiden

    Iron Maiden

    Paragon of Bacon
    Orange Room Supporter
    If a model can be patched or upgraded, then it means parts of it are kept while others are discarded or replaced, correct?
    No it means it was correct, as a whole, until new data came to be, and changed the equation andestablished a new model.

    I see what u tryin to do thar ;)
     
    Indie

    Indie

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    No it means it was correct, as a whole, until new data came to be, and changed the equation andestablished a new model.

    I see what u tryin to do thar ;)
    Right...so it was correct "as a whole" but not completely.

    EDIT: just to clarify, by "as a whole," I understand you to mean "generally, but not on every single point."
     
    Isabella

    Isabella

    The queen of "Bazella"
    Orange Room Supporter
    It can also mean that there is no common ancestor. Scientists must be open to all possibilities.

    We have genetic similarities to lobsters as well. That doesn't mean we evolved from lobsters.
    It's not just that we have genetic similarities to chimpanzees it's that we are actually sister species which means we likely had a common genetic ancestor somewhere in the past... And while all biological material has a lot in common on earth you share about 96% to 98% of your dna with chimpanzees, 90% with cats and 60% with chickens. So scientifically speaking you are definitely a lot closer to chimps than lobsters!

    Evolution is not a straight line it's more like a spider web it's not one long chain either and when a link is missing the entire thing breaks down. We know we have a common ancestor with apes because our genetic material is similar but if you go far enough in time we are likely to have a common genetic ancestor with nearly all living things. That doesn't mean a "missing link" makes the theory of evolution "mostly rubbish"
     
    Indie

    Indie

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    It's not just that we have genetic similarities to chimpanzees it's that we are actually sister species which means we likely had a common genetic ancestor somewhere in the past... And while all biological material has a lot in common on earth you share about 96% to 98% of your dna with chimpanzees, 90% with cats and 60% with chickens. So scientifically speaking you are definitely a lot closer to chimps than lobsters!

    Evolution is not a straight line it's more like a spider web it's not one long chain either and when a link is missing the entire thing breaks down. We know we have a common ancestor with apes because our genetic material is similar but if you go far enough in time we are likely to have a common genetic ancestor with nearly all living things. That doesn't mean a "missing link" makes the theory of evolution "mostly rubbish"
    We are not debating how close we are to different species, but whether or not we descend from them.

    According to what you just said, claiming we descend from lobsters (or one of their ancestors) is as accurate as claiming we descend from apes. The only thing that changes is how far back we diverged from each species.

    That, makes the whole emphasis on our descending from apes irrelevant; because, according to this theory, all living things descend from a single source.
     
    Last edited:
    Iron Maiden

    Iron Maiden

    Paragon of Bacon
    Orange Room Supporter
    As Catholics, we are not taught to take genesis 100% literally; but, rather, as a simplified representation of how the world and humanity was created.

    So...I don't venture into pronouncing myself on detailed scientific specifics. I just believe that the stories in the Bible and science are not mutually exclusive. The former expresses our reality in a literary form, while the latter looks for technical explanations.
    Nor do i think they are exclusive, the OT is one of the oldest and accurate collective stories of human civilization.

    It can also mean that there is no common ancestor. Scientists must be open to all possibilities.

    We have genetic similarities to lobsters as well. That doesn't mean we evolved from lobsters.
    actually you have a lot in common with lobster, especially the brain part.
    Our love of hierarchy and order stems from the exact part of the brain we inherited from them that makes lobsters live in a hierarchical system.
     
    Isabella

    Isabella

    The queen of "Bazella"
    Orange Room Supporter
    We are not debating how close we are to different species, but whether or not we descend from them.

    According to what you just said, claiming we descend from lobsters is as accurate as claiming we descend from apes. The only thing that changes is how far back we diverged from each species.

    That, makes the whole emphasis on our descending from apes irrelevant; because, according to this theory, all living things descend from a single source.
    You are not descended from apes, never said that, you and apes have a common ancestor that hasn't been found yet and that's what is known as the missing link.
    You share 60% of your dna with bananas as well lol

    And yes correct, all life on earth evolved from a single celled organism that lived roughly 3.5 billion years ago... The only people that put emphasis on apes are those who want to deny the merits of evolution, the argument being how come the missing link hasn't been found yet we are definitely not related to apes... Or how come apes still exist that means we did not evolve from them... Most of which come from a creationist perspective ignoring the fact that evolution is not really at odds with God.
     
    Iron Maiden

    Iron Maiden

    Paragon of Bacon
    Orange Room Supporter
    Right...so it was correct "as a whole" but not completely.

    EDIT: just to clarify, by "as a whole," I understand you to mean "generally, but not on every single point."
    When i mean as a whole i mean on every point it tries to tackle.

    For example the theory of gravity that newton established was accepted as whole until new observations came out that the model could not explain and then deemed obsolete and rejected as a whole.
     
    Isabella

    Isabella

    The queen of "Bazella"
    Orange Room Supporter
    When i mean as a whole i mean on every point it tries to tackle.

    For example the theory of gravity that newton established was accepted as whole until new observations came out that the model could not explain and then deemed obsolete and rejected as a whole.
    Ooh prepare to witness the wrath of isabella!

    Newton's laws are not deemed obsolete and rejected as a whole, we still use Newtonian mechanics at low speed.. they are just approximations for a more complete theory, einstein's general relativity, that work perfectly well when you are not at great speeds at which point they start to break down. We can say they are incomplete not obsolete kinda like rounding up at the nearest decimal with pi that I have only memorized until 3.141592653 (don't get a lot of opportunities to plug that in :p)
     
    Iron Maiden

    Iron Maiden

    Paragon of Bacon
    Orange Room Supporter
    Ooh prepare to witness the wrath of isabella!

    Newton's laws are not deemed obsolete and rejected as a whole, we still use Newtonian mechanics at low speed.. they are just approximations for a more complete theory, einstein's general relativity, that work perfectly well when you are not at great speeds at which point they start to break down. We can say they are incomplete not obsolete kinda like rounding up at the nearest decimal with pi that I have only memorized until 3.141592653 (don't get a lot of opportunities to plug that in :p)
    Chill four eyes :lol:
    I am talking at universal scale here thats why i said it couldnt describe new observations and was put aside, not talking billiards mechanics i know what u mean :)
     
    Isabella

    Isabella

    The queen of "Bazella"
    Orange Room Supporter
    Chill four eyes :lol:
    I am talking at universal scale here thats why i said it couldnt describe new observations and was put aside, not talking billiards mechanics i know what u mean :)
    Well then you are indeed correct :)
     
    Iron Maiden

    Iron Maiden

    Paragon of Bacon
    Orange Room Supporter
    Yes, Jordan Peterson is what I had in mind when I made the lobster comment :p

    Now you guys will have to excuse me but I have to go get a formal dress altered because it is a bit big on me and I need it for an event soon :p
    Min bado yetjawaz?
     
    Top