NOVA documentary on Human Evolution

[غزالی]

We cannot separate Science from Knowledge because Science is Knowledge, it is a latin word which means knowledge. Knowledge of the origin of the universe can only come from the knowledge we get from the study of Physics... how else can you get it by talking to a witch doctor or reading a text written 1400 years ago which has no mention of the universe beyond the moon, sun, stars and the few planets we knew of at that time? I hope we are on the same page on this.

Without sufficient tangible evidence I would suspend judgement.

Its a fact that human beings are mamalian animals that breast feed, have hair on their body, give birth to live infants. etc. The only difference between humans and other animals is that some animals evolved to have great strength to survive, some animals evolved flight to survive, some animals can run fast. Humans evolved intelligence I do not see this particularly interesting because no one else did it. Platypus are the only mammals that lay eggs... do you think that is very interesting, why didn't god release a version of the bible for them as-well since they are also an exceptional case. Therefore I cannot see why humans may have evolved following a different set of laws than other animals, we are not as special as we like to think as we have very humble origins. Look at your hands, your right hand comes from the star dust from a completely different star than your left hand. We are all related to each other in common ancestors and we are all related to the universe due to the atom nature. Dont you think that is beautiful?
There are movements going on in the western world to give other apes the same status as humans. Ie Chimps, Bonobos and Gorillas and I am happy to say in most civilized countries it is illegal to do experimentation on these intelligent animals.

I am afraid I cant care what a word would mean 2000 year back. We are in this age and we have to go by the contemporary meanings/understanding of all things we deal with. Who better than you would know that things (in this case language) evolve ans assume different shapes and meanings.

You have defined science, now define the knowledge for me as per your own understanding, please.

Fair point about suspension if you can bear the torture that comes with it!

So, you are accepting that there were more than one species of animals which came into existence (how? we will get to that point soon)?

Highlighted phrase: Do you have any evidence for this particular disinterest or is it just your personal evolutionist/scientific bias?

Please avoid innuendos as I have not raised this point or presented it as an argument, we are have a simple and straight academic dialogue.

I dont have any issue with those movement as long as they are born out of finer moral instincts of humans and within the purview of those societies' moral code of conduct.

 

[Vitamin_C]

Knowledge is understanding of a subject. Knowledge can be facts, theories etc.
I already knew where you want to take the tangible evidence and I am ready for that. I am just playing this word game along.
More than one species came into existence? Scientists believe all life came from single cell organisms. Where and how it all started is not a question of evolution its a question of Abiogenesis which is a different field in biology.

I was comparing humans evolving a distinct trait called intelligence with the platypus evolving a distinct trait as the only mammal that lays eggs. What makes us so special as nature has made many other interesting and exceptional species out there as well.

I am afraid I cant care what a word would mean 2000 year back. We are in this age and we have to go by the contemporary meanings/understanding of all things we deal with. Who better than you would know that things (in this case language) evolve ans assume different shapes and meanings.

You have defined science, now define the knowledge for me as per your own understanding, please.

Fair point about suspension if you can bear the torture that comes with it!

So, you are accepting that there were more than one species of animals which came into existence (how? we will get to that point soon)?

Highlighted phrase: Do you have any evidence for this particular disinterest or is it just your personal evolutionist/scientific bias?

Please avoid innuendos as I have not raised this point or presented it as an argument, we are have a simple and straight academic dialogue.

I dont have any issue with those movement as long as they are born out of finer moral instincts of humans and within the purview of those societies' moral code of conduct.

 

[غزالی]

My version is that there are alot of different versions out there. There is sufficient evidence to believe(1) that the universe began from one point of the universe and the big bang did happen, a belief that is held by mainstream scientist. However I cannot go deeper, to say who or what caused the big bang(2), whether big bangs occur often and are there billions of other universes out there? Does black hole collapse and turn unto another universe? I do not know.(2)

I have no evidence to believe one thing over another therefore I suspend judgement, my honest answer would be I do not know. Will we ever know?(3) I do not know that either. Maybe the universe does not owe us an explanation at all...? We do not know. Also because I do not know does not mean that a God did it.

1) Could you please list only five pieces of that sufficient evidence?

2) Is this a strong position of an evolutionist?

3) Not asking for an evidence here, but just out of curiosity what is your hunch/opinion/reasoning based on the human history and knowledge so far? Is not this your tendency to disbelieve/reject working here? Can you make peace with yourself through this tendency? If yes, then what is the personal utility of having such a tendency?

 

[ThoughtFelon]

No, Sir!

Have to differ, it is not morality and philosophy. It is creation/production and morality which evolutionists seem to confuse with each other and the creationists seem not to understand the former.

Was there much available to or worth reading in 2000 BC? Why it has to be from reading, why it cant be discussed? Can anything be concocted without applying one's mind? Were those existing 4000 years back in time, who concocted this or whatever had some plausible motive to do so?

I have no idea what your talking about. How are evolutionist confusing creation and production with morality? Clarify your position.

You also seem to have some comprehension problems. Was there much available to read in 2000 BC? I was pointing out the extent of their ignorance by pointing out their reading/writing skills or lack thereof.

You need to research on the importance of record keeping, exchange of knowledge, history of knowledge, history of God through out ages etc to understand why 2000 BC humans were very ignorant as per today's standards and why they concocted creationism.

 

[غزالی]

Knowledge is understanding of a subject. Knowledge can be facts, theories etc.
I already knew where you want to take the tangible evidence and I am ready for that. I am just playing this word game along.
More than one species came into existence? Scientists believe all life came from single cell organisms. Where and how it all started is not a question of evolution its a question of Abiogenesis which is a different field in biology.

I was comparing humans evolving a distinct trait called intelligence with the platypus evolving a distinct trait as the only mammal that lays eggs. What makes us so special as nature has made many other interesting and exceptional species out there as well.

This is better!

With this definition of knowledge, would you accept that science is a method of turning theories into facts? If yes, then are science and knowledge the same thing?

Only a tiny fraction of scientists believe. Biology and Physics is not all the knowledge. Even within these two disciplines, some are just doing their jobs, holding lucrative fellowships/chairs that accord them luxury and social acceptance/status.

Yes, it is not a question of evolution BUT it is the foundation of evolution. If foundation is weak or non-existent then one can well imagine what will happen to the edifice built on it, don't you think?

 

[Vitamin_C]

1. Big Bang is a theory(important to note) its not just an idea.
a) all galaxies are moving away from each other. It means the entire universe may have been on the same spot billions of years ago.
b) cosmic microwave back ground radiation. This was predicted by the big bang theory years before it was discovered
c) the further you look in space the further back you look in time, we cannot see any stars if we look beyond 13.8 billion years.
d) Big Bang Nucleosynthesis, abundance of elements, you can measure the big bang by studying the traces of hydrogen, helium and other elements.
e) Scientists can tell you with high degree confidence what happened from more than a trillionth of a second after the bang step by step. I cannot go into much more detail.

2) Cosmology and evolution are 2 different subjects. Views on evolution are not dependent on a persons views on cosmology. We may know alot about a certain topic, but we may not know much about another.

3) We have a tendency to be arrogant and think we are the smartest and know everything. Truth is we are just apes who learned how to walk on 2 feet after an asteroid hit the earth and wiped out the dinosaurs. I do not find a better method to believe in something and reject another thing. If someone tells me to give him my money because a book says so, I would see it the same way as I would see a christian missionary. People like using the mole philosophy, that the mole is blind his reality is different from ours so he does not know alot of the truths. Hinting that humans are also blind and not capable of knowing ultimate truth. If we are not capable of knowing then I am willing to admit the limits of my inferior intelligence and say I do not know rather than to conclude something that I cannot test or prove.

1) Could you please list only five pieces of that sufficient evidence?

2) Is this a strong position of an evolutionist?

3) Not asking for an evidence here, but just out of curiosity what is your hunch/opinion/reasoning based on the human history and knowledge so far? Is not this your tendency to disbelieve/reject working here? Can you make peace with yourself through this tendency? If yes, then what is the personal utility of having such a tendency?

 

[Vitamin_C]

Abiogenesis is not the base of evolution. Evolution has nothing to do with Abiogenesis. Evolution is just talking about how species change. Abiogenesis talks about how organic materials arose from non-life matter.
Its not a tiny fraction. According to a 1998 study by EJ Larson and L Witham, based on the National Academy of scientists (the cream of top scientists). only 7% believe in God. All most all of those who believe in God also believe in Evolution simultaneously (God caused evolution).

This is better!

With this definition of knowledge, would you accept that science is a method of turning theories into facts? If yes, then are science and knowledge the same thing?

Only a tiny fraction of scientists believe. Biology and Physics is not all the knowledge. Even within these two disciplines, some are just doing their jobs, holding lucrative fellowships/chairs that accord them luxury and social acceptance/status.

Yes, it is not a question of evolution BUT it is the foundation of evolution. If foundation is weak or non-existent then one can well imagine what will happen to the edifice built on it, don't you think?

 

[غزالی]

I have no idea what your talking about. How are evolutionist confusing creation and production with morality? Clarify your position.

You also seem to have some comprehension problems. Was there much available to read in 2000 BC? I was pointing out the extent of their ignorance by pointing out their reading/writing skills or lack thereof.

You need to research on the importance of record keeping, exchange of knowledge, history of knowledge, history of God through out ages etc to understand why 2000 BC humans were very ignorant as per today's standards and why they concocted creationism.

All religious scriptures (especially the divine ones) originated primarily as a moral code for God's best creation.

In the beginning, humans were mentally incapacitated just owing to the fact that there was not much interaction with the resources (both human and physical) that would trigger/stimulate the thought process as a corollary, slow development of faculties/common sense. By the time, the Quran was given to Muhammed, the human intelligence/common sense had matured to a level where it could think of advance concepts in other field, yet they were left after providing only vague clues to work on them to discover the mysteries of the creation of/and universe.

لیکن بد قسمتی نال مسلماناں دا پٹرول چھ ست سو سال دے اندر ندر ای مُک گیا

and leadership in research and knowledge creation went to the West which applied their (moral) bent to that activity, and coming to 21st century they just dazzled us, specially in last 2-3 centuries with the likes of Freud, Marks and Darwin and here I am talking to you........... :)

Sory for the above diversion.

Dazzled and clueless, the half-baked mullah ignorant of contemporary branches of knowledge went into defensive and reactive mode and took all this as an attack on the foundation of his religion and started to make blunders in his blind love of the religion to defend it totally against the zeitgeist. In the process he became a laughing stock. So that is how this insane tussle has made the Quran to look like against the march of human thought and turned it into creationists vs evolutionists. This is why the Quran is not primarily about creation of the universe and life

Quranic diction on creation of the universe and life is allegorical and not definitive. There are vague clues and terms need deciphering and we need to follow on them applying a believer's mindset and try to find the truth.

This, however, does in any sense not mean to say that the West has found the ultimate truth. It is a fascinating journey and we are in infancy!

I shall try to follow on the advice at the end of your post........... :)

 

[غزالی]

1. Big Bang is a theory(important to note) its not just an idea.
a) all galaxies are moving away from each other. It means the entire universe may have been on the same spot billions of years ago.
b) cosmic microwave back ground radiation. This was predicted by the big bang theory years before it was discovered
c) the further you look in space the further back you look in time, we cannot see any stars if we look beyond 13.8 billion years.
d) Big Bang Nucleosynthesis, abundance of elements, you can measure the big bang by studying the traces of hydrogen, helium and other elements.
e) Scientists can tell you with high degree confidence what happened from more than a trillionth of a second after the bang step by step. I cannot go into much more detail.

2) Cosmology and evolution are 2 different subjects. Views on evolution are not dependent on a persons views on cosmology. We may know alot about a certain topic, but we may not know much about another.

3) We have a tendency to be arrogant and think we are the smartest and know everything. Truth is we are just apes who learned how to walk on 2 feet after an asteroid hit the earth and wiped out the dinosaurs(3). I do not find a better method to believe in something and reject another thing. If someone tells me to give him my money because a book says so, I would see it the same way as I would see a christian missionary. People like using the mole philosophy, that the mole is blind his reality is different from ours so he does not know alot of the truths. Hinting that humans are also blind and not capable of knowing ultimate truth. If we are not capable of knowing then I am willing to admit the limits of my inferior intelligence and say I do not know rather than to conclude something that I cannot test or prove.

I accept it is not idea any more, but big bang is not a fact either yet.
Does a piece of evidence talk in terms of 'may have been'?
Point 'c' and 'e' are incomprehensible, not sure what you are trying to convey.

2) That is a circular/evasive argument while I raised a specific point based on your previous argument.

3) Is there conclusive evidence for this?

I dont mind if you indulge in charity following muslim advice or a christian one. The point is that human desire/inclination for charity finds a reflection in religious scripture or vice verca.

 

[غزالی]

Abiogenesis is not the base of evolution. Evolution has nothing to do with Abiogenesis. Evolution is just talking about how species change. Abiogenesis talks about how organic materials arose from non-life matter.
Its not a tiny fraction. According to a 1998 study by EJ Larson and L Witham, based on the National Academy of scientists (the cream of top scientists). only 7% believe in God. All most all of those who believe in God also believe in Evolution simultaneously (God caused evolution).

Which country's academy you are referring to here and overall or in a particular subject area?

The rest of this post is irrelevant to the points it tried to address from my quoted post.

 

[Vitamin_C]

What is circular about my argument?
Theory is as good as fact in science, if you see theory you can take it as a fact.
Yes there is. There was a major extinction event in the past (a layer in the earth where fossils are absent or in lower density). The asteroid in mexico is dated to the same time as that max extinction. I do not know whether its just a hypothesis or an actual theory (asteroid causing mass extinction) But it is highly likely and widely believed to be the cause.

I accept it is not idea any more, but big bang is not a fact either yet.
Does a piece of evidence talk in terms of 'may have been'?
Point 'c' and 'e' are incomprehensible, not sure what you are trying to convey.

2) That is a circular/evasive argument while I raised a specific point based on your previous argument.

3) Is there conclusive evidence for this?

I dont mind if you indulge in charity following muslim advice or a christian one. The point is that human desire/inclination for charity finds a reflection in religious scripture or vice verca.

 

[Vitamin_C]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Academy_of_Sciences

Keep in mind USA is one of the most religious countries in the West.

Which country's academy you are referring to here and overall or in a particular subject area?

The rest of this post is irrelevant to the points it tried to address from my quoted post.

 

[Vitamin_C]

I hope by now you understand the meaning of Scientific theory and fact is? That theories do not graduate into facts. Like Apples do not turn into oranges?
If after all this discussion you are going to say to me that something is just a theory and its not a fact I am going to hang up on you right now. :)

I accept it is not idea any more, but big bang is not a fact either yet.
Does a piece of evidence talk in terms of 'may have been'?
Point 'c' and 'e' are incomprehensible, not sure what you are trying to convey.

2) That is a circular/evasive argument while I raised a specific point based on your previous argument.

3) Is there conclusive evidence for this?

I dont mind if you indulge in charity following muslim advice or a christian one. The point is that human desire/inclination for charity finds a reflection in religious scripture or vice verca.

 

[غزالی]

What is circular about my argument?
Theory is as good as fact in science, if you see theory you can take it as a fact.
Yes there is(1). There was a major extinction event in the past (a layer in the earth where fossils are absent or in lower density). The asteroid in mexico is dated to the same time as that max extinction. I do not know whether(3) its just a hypothesis or an actual theory (asteroid causing mass extinction) But it is highly likely and widely believed to be the cause.

You are losing it (I mean your sense of balance and touch with the reality/context), buddy!

If this is your understanding of theory then you will be an unintended culprit of another bang and that would come out of my head and wall near it.

Circular argument was that when you are shown the weakness of your position then you start scoping it and limiting its application to selective things/areas. While the others weak position is an absolute for you.

Can there be a bigger gap in (1) and (2)? You started with an assertion and contradicted yourself in a space of less than 25 words. Remember my adjective? It was CONCLUSIVE. And in reply you have given me this statement......:13:(omg)

 

[غزالی]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Academy_of_Sciences

Keep in mind USA is one of the most religious countries in the West.

Thanks for the link.

While this is an acceptable measure (only one measure and from one country) but it does not refute the central points of my post for following reasons, among other things:

Many of the original NAS members came from the so-called "Scientific Lazzaroni", an informal network of mostly physical scientists working in the vicinity of Cambridge, Massachusetts (c. 1850). (This speaks of a certain tilt/bias as usually physicist and biologists are most vociferous atheists and agnostics.)

[SUP]As of 2013, the National Academy of Sciences includes about 2,200 members and 400 foreign associates.[SUP][7][/SUP] [/SUP]

 

[غزالی]

I hope by now you understand the meaning of Scientific theory and fact is? That theories do not graduate into facts. Like Apples do not turn into oranges?
If after all this discussion you are going to say to me that something is just a theory and its not a fact I am going to hang up on you right now. :)

If theories do not transition to facts, then how do they become evidence?

No, seriously, if they do not deal with tangibles they should at least be proven by mathematical equations.

 

[Vitamin_C]

Are you talking about current members or original members because the current members are elected to the NAS. Its a very prestigious position and i would think twice to blame it on some conspiracy. USA is much more religious than European countries, you can do some research on them as well the story will not be much better for your world view.

Thanks for the link.

While this is an acceptable measure (only one measure and from one country) but it does not refute the central points of my post for following reasons, among other things:

Many of the original NAS members came from the so-called "Scientific Lazzaroni", an informal network of mostly physical scientists working in the vicinity of Cambridge, Massachusetts (c. 1850). (This speaks of a certain tilt/bias as usually physicist and biologists are most vociferous atheists and agnostics.)

[SUP]As of 2013, the National Academy of Sciences includes about 2,200 members and 400 foreign associates.[SUP][7][/SUP] [/SUP]

 

[Vitamin_C]

This is not my understanding of theory, this is the definition of a scientific theory, that it is more important than a fact. Science is not a matter of our personal opinion.

An argument cannot be circular if there is no link in between. The change of one species to another species, has nothing to do of a single cell arising from a non life matter. Because evolution is based on the premise that life already exists, it does not make any claim on how it started. So origin of life/origin of universe are not relevant to each other.
Do not confuse. In one place I was talking about theory of Big Bang. If its a theory then it is conclusive yes.

The second place I was talking about the asteroid extinction event, I said I do not know/cannot recall whether the asteroid causing the extinction was just a hypothesis or a concrete theory, nor do i have the time to google it right now or look for the book, what ever but there is conclusive evidence that an extinction event did occur regardless of cause.
Please do not take my quotes out of context and mis represent them.

You are losing it (I mean your sense of balance and touch with the reality/context), buddy!

If this is your understanding of theory then you will be an unintended culprit of another bang and that would come out of my head and wall near it.

Circular argument was that when you are shown the weakness of your position then you start scoping it and limiting its application to selective things/areas. While the others weak position is an absolute for you.

Can there be a bigger gap in (1) and (2)? You started with an assertion and contradicted yourself in a space of less than 25 words. Remember my adjective? It was CONCLUSIVE. And in reply you have given me this statement......:13:(omg)

 

[Vitamin_C]

It seems you need to do some education on basic terminologies before we can go any further. Try to search on google or on youtube on the differences between scientific theories, facts, laws and evidence. Get the definition of what a scientific theory is and what is the process to achieve the status of a theory in science and what it means.

If theories do not transition to facts, then how do they become evidence?

No, seriously, if they do not deal with tangibles they should at least be proven by mathematical equations.

 

[غزالی]

It seems you need to do some education on basic terminologies before we can go any further. Try to search on google or on youtube on the differences between scientific theories, facts, laws and evidence. Get the definition of what a scientific theory is and what is the process to achieve the status of a theory in science and what it means.

Remember, I started with a request for careful and standard scientific expression? First you mentioned just theory without qualifying it with 'scientific' adjective. A theory can also be just a hypothesis. Now you have moved to scientific theory.

Remember, you started with evidence? Now look at the following statements:

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.

Do you have any objection to this? If no, then can something be substantiated without evidence which in your language/definition is tangible fact(s)? When I question your (scientific) theories, I am asking for the evidence that substantiates them, you start telling me stories in terms of may, may have or have been.

[FONT=Open sans, sans-serif]I would conclude that is an issue of bringing clarity in expression and being careful while doing that.[/FONT]

[FONT=Open sans, sans-serif]Now you are bringing laws and theories to the equation. Remember when I asked for the acceptance of a reason argument in the absence of some tangible evidence? Again you were adamant on it at that time. Not sure how to put this dialogue back on track. Usually this what happens in any dialogue of this nature. the disagreement on terminologies, their definition and carelessness in expression reduces the whole effort to a joke and it ends acrimoniously.[/FONT]

[FONT=Open sans, sans-serif]I would expect some suggestions to put his back on track.[/FONT]