[Godstud]

Pseudoscience is science where the scientific method can not be met.

Of course philosophy and religion are not sciences. Religion and philosophy are about how to live. They are not meant to explain the world around us.

The problem comes when you try to use religion to try to explain the world.
Eg. God made man. Sorry, but there's no evidence to support this. There's no evidence AGAINST this, but absence of evidence is not evidence.

There IS evidence for Evolution. There's a great deal of it. Sadly, some people don't want to understand things, and instead want to rely on religious dogma to tell them what to think. They CHOOSE to be stupid.

[Potemkin]

Although the healthiest thing is the level of argues in physics when they doubt everything now, this is the best attitude

Indeed. After all, science began with scepticism. The traditional explanation for solar eclipses was that "it is the will of the gods, who make it happen." Thales of Miletus said: "Well, maybe they do and maybe they don't. Let's observe this phenomenon, and see if we can spot any patterns...." That was the beginning of science.

[anasawad]

@Potemkin
No its not. Science is not decided by consensus at all.
If there is a million scientists holding a wrong opinion and just one holding the right one.
They don't become right because they all agree on it, and he does not become wrong because the majority disagrees with hem.

Actually, humans (and in fact all vertebrates) are descended from fish. Cladistically speaking, humans are merely highly evolved fish.

All life began in water, sure. But that in no way means that humans are "highly evolved fish".
"Fish" is not a description of anything that lives in water. Its a description of a specific category of species that live in water, but not all of them.
And the early creatures to live in water before land creatures evolved generally were not fish.

[RhetoricThug]

We like smelling our own farts.

There's a great deal of it. Sadly, some people don't want to understand things, and instead want to rely on religious dogma to tell them what to think. They CHOOSE to be stupid.

Something is always telling you what to think, Godstud. You're in a feedback loop with the information environment and sensation is tactile. Science turned knowledge into a religion. Sure, you can intellectually create human 'logic' and make 'sense' of abstract patterns, but science will never understand or explain the undivided whole of a simultaneous 'happening' because science itself is involved in the investigation of the interplay between 'things' inside the 'happening' as it happens and therefore it will never be able to 'see' the 'happening' from any perspective other than a living perspective. It is what it is, not what you think it is. The patterns humans 'see' must be side-effects of morphological sensory impression. Humans evolved to 'see' things as they 'see' things because they interface with reality through the human sensorium. Peer-reviewed knowledge is a kind of sensus communis, knowledge abstracted through the scientific method. If the environment is our education, and Nature is the first cause, that would leave plenty of room for an intelligent creation argument. After-all, if you thoroughly investigate reality, is it not self-evident that all 'things' come from some'thing' and evolution is a side-effect or illusion of time? God is a cognitive construct and nothing coming from nothing is the same kind of cognitive construct, both forms of thought constitute priori knowledge. Humans are in a puzzle planet navigating sensation... We didn't build the puzzle, we simply interpret and manipulate it. Most of us are far too weaponized by thought programs to think clearly. Beyond trolling, intellectual osmosis, and political theatre, we're all just pretending to understand reality. Hapless/Helpless nodes in a celestial schematic. For We do not come into this world, we come out of it.

Thank you for your time and attention

[Potemkin]

All life began in water, sure. But that in no way means that humans are "highly evolved fish".

Since the 1990s, cladistic analysis has become almost de rigeur in the field of palaeontology. According to cladistics, 'fish' are vertebrates, which first appeared in the seas of the Cambrian, and all of their descendants. Those descendants, of course, include our good selves. Therefore, cladistically speaking, we can be classified as highly evolved fish.

"Fish" is not a description of anything that lives in water. Its a description of a specific category of species that live in water, but not all of them.
And the early creatures to live in water before land creatures evolved generally were not fish.

Indeed, and we didn't evolve from them. We evolved from the first vertebrates, which were fish.

[LehmanB]

Indeed. After all, science began with scepticism. The traditional explanation for solar eclipses was that "it is the will of the gods, who make it happen." Thales of Miletus said: "Well, maybe they do and maybe they don't. Let's observe this phenomenon, and see if we can spot any patterns...." That was the beginning of science.

And when these argues stop, THAT will be the end of it.
Same applies for healthy philosophical and religious enviornments, where people argues and develop theories; versus an atmosphere of fear.

[anasawad]

@Potemkin
I would disagree. Its been a while since I read up on the topic, so 'll dig up the research.
But if I remember correctly, there were jawed vertebrates and jawless vertebrates. Each diverged on its own.
And generally, all the different known classes of "Fish" came from a different divergence in that era than us and most other land dwelling classes.

Either way, I'll search into the details when I'm done my hookah and drinks and get back to you.

[Potemkin]

I would disagree. Its been a while since I read up on the topic, so 'll dig up the research.
But if I remember correctly, there were jawed vertebrates and jawless vertebrates. Each diverged on its own.
And generally, all the different known classes of "Fish" came from a different divergence in that era than us and most other land dwelling classes.

@anasawad

The first vertebrates to appear were jawless fish, and were our ancestors. Some of these jawless fish evolved jaws, and were our ancestors. Some of these jawed fish evolved lobed fins, and were our ancestors. Some of these lobe-finned fish crawled onto dry land and became the first tetrapods, and were our ancestors. Do you see where I'm going with this....?

[Drlee]

Scintillating.

Hindsite: Creation by the God of the Holy Bible and the theory of evolution over billions of years can not exist in harmony.


Potemkin: That is correct.

Two people on opposite sides of one issue and they both have it wrong.

I see absolutely no reason why evolution over billions of years is not consistent with the Bible. And I am not alone. The majority of Christians in the world accept evolution. Even Pope Francis (Boss of about 40% of them) specifically said that evolution is not inconsistent with creation.

One only need know that the evolution of man was long long over before any men decided to find out what happened back in the mists of time. So they made up an allegorical story to 'splain it to the meanest of understanding. And to this day, the meanest of understanding still prevails among some.

It is time we Christians not take insults without firing back even when the persons insulting our God are claiming to be Christians.

Those (Christians) who refuse to accept clear science out of some misguided sense of loyalty to a story (which is irrelevant to Christ's mission by the way) are practicing the simplest kind of Christianity. They are simply not the smart ones in the group. I get why. It is much easier to simply doggedly cling to a rule-based religious "system" than it is to have faith instead. Faith is hard.

For you see, these evolution deniers are putting their faith in a book written by tons of people over thousands of years rather than putting their faith in God. Something like this: "I read it, its in there, nothing more to know, that's the end of it."

Of course the problem for smart Christians is twofold. We can see the scientific evidence. We believe that God made us smart for a reason. So....

The second is that we are offended by the requirements that literal Bible interpretation on us. It limits to the understanding of 5000 years ago our ability to understand the nature of God. It limits the power of God in our lives. And most difficult is that it denies the necessity of faith.

To the issue of faith.

If one is raised to believe that the Biblical account is literally true there is no need for faith. That is counter to what Jesus taught in so many ways. Jesus spoke to the "blessedness of faith". Not of knowledge.

So intelligent and mature Christians have n problem with evolution. Not so smart and not so mature Christians, do.

[anasawad]

@Potemkin
Turns out you're right on the ancestry.
Nevertheless, scientifically speaking, we're highly divergent from fish, and thus so can not be considered just evolved fish.

[Potemkin]

Turns out you're right on the ancestry.

I am Potemkin. I know all things.

Nevertheless, scientifically speaking, we're highly divergent from fish, and thus so can not be considered just evolved fish.

We are highly derived fish, but nonetheless we are fish. Cladistically speaking, of course.

[mikema63]

I'm on potemkin's side. Theres ultimately no real fundamental line where something stops being one thing and becomes another in biology. There is no one fish that gave birth to something that wasn't a fish.

Besides that's how they teach it in evolutionary biology classes and I'm stickin to what I know.

[B0ycey]

@Drlee, spot on with your view on evolution and religion. If I recall God created all the animals to their kind on the fifth day. It doesn't say anywhere that an animal cannot adapt or evolve into new kinds. Surely a wise deity would even execute such changes to help his creations survive right? Either way, if creationists weren't so blinded by the desire to dismiss an atheist that is Darwin, they could even claim mutations in DNA is devine intervention and use it as proof perhaps to his existence.

[RhetoricThug]

I am Potemkin. I know all things.


We are highly derived fish, but nonetheless we are fish. Cladistically speaking, of course

Actually you can never know Ding an sich, you just know the classification of a perceived happening. Science will never understand or explain the undivided whole of a simultaneous 'happening' because science itself is involved in the investigation of the interplay between 'things' inside the 'happening' as it happens and therefore it will never be able to 'see' the 'happening' from any perspective other than a living perspective. You're consciousness having a human experience. Fish, Ape, Man- forms of the MONAD or primordial consciousness. BTW, merely knowing the classification of things is not impressive in an age of instant information. Cladistically, everything in existence must be an expression of the 'beginning' and 'end,' and you're a fragment of the universe living out a finite sensation somewhere in the 'middle' (however relative that may be for you as a side-effect of everything else) of an ouroboros cycle. The chicken and egg exist simultaneously, but appear to unfold sequentially from a living perspective. 'Being' present creates an information bias.

Besides that's how they teach it in evolutionary biology classes and I'm stickin to what I know.

Yep, you only know what you've been told, not what you behold. Thought is creating divisions out of itself and then saying that they are there naturally. You and your teachers teacher teach what had been taught. Thought is constantly evolving and we can't say when that system began.






@Drlee I liked your post above^^^. God is a cognitive construct and nothing coming from nothing is the same kind of cognitive construct, both forms of thought constitute priori knowledge. Scientists and theologians rely on faith, both cosmological interpretations seem to have faith in life.

[Potemkin]

Actually you can never know Ding an sich, you just know the classification of a perceived happening. Science will never understand or explain the undivided whole of a simultaneous 'happening' because science itself is involved in the investigation of the interplay between 'things' inside the 'happening' as it happens and therefore it will never be able to 'see' the 'happening' from any perspective other than a living perspective. You're consciousness having a human experience. Fish, Ape, Man- forms of the MONAD or primordial consciousness. BTW, merely knowing the classification of things is not impressive in an age of instant information. Cladistically, everything in existence must be an expression of the 'beginning' and 'end,' and you're a fragment of the universe living out a finite sensation somewhere in the 'middle' (however relative that may be for you as a side-effect of everything else) of an ouroboros cycle. The chicken and egg exist simultaneously, but appear to unfold sequentially from a living perspective. 'Being' present creates an information bias.

No, really. We're fish. We are descended from fish, which means we are fish. A fish can only give birth to another fish. We're fish. Seriously.

[anasawad]

If we're fish, then pretty much majority of, if not all, living creatures of significant size are fish, in so the word become meaningless since it wouldn't describe any type of species or biological characteristic or anything.

Basically, no, we're not fish. There are identified characteristics that can be observed.
No need for trolling.

[mikema63]

Are you not a eukaryote? Are you not a vertebrate?

The way taxonomy is done you are always a subclass of what you evolved from, all mammals are tetrapods for instance despite this also including all land animals.

Evolution is continuous not granular. Your classification must always contain the entire history of evolution.

It's not trolling, it's the standard understanding used by biologists.

[Potemkin]

Are you not a eukaryote? Are you not a vertebrate?

The way taxonomy is done you are always a subclass of what you evolved from, all mammals are tetrapods for instance despite this also including all land animals.

Evolution is continuous not granular. Your classification must always contain the entire history of evolution.

^ Mike said it better than I could.

[anasawad]

@Potemkin @mikema63
Yes. All species are subclasses of an upper class to them.
Fish are not a class, family, superclass, etc. Fish is a description for some species but not a class of species.
You can take a look at the tree of evolution classes, there aren't any mentions of "fish". Mainly because thats not how classes are categorized.

Clearly, you skipped the session talking about "standard understanding" you're referring to.

[mikema63]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osteichthyes

Fish as a class are broken up into various different groups true but that doesn't mean we aren't members of one of those groups and thus fish.