i think the time to be agnostic is when you have evidence on both sides of a claim.
for example, i'm agnostic about the existence of a historical jesus.
i think a reasonable case can be made that jesus was a man who was turned into a legend over a period of a couple of decades.
SBF,
Truth is not a theory. It's a label we apply to claims that meet a specific criteria.
And words don't have intrinsic meanings. They have usages. A word means whatever two or more people agree it means. And the way I'm using the word is how just about every single English speaking person on this planet uses the word.
But no matter, if you mean something OTHER than "claims that match reality" then please explain what you mean by "truth" and why it's relevant to our discussion.
last friday my boy of ten was very late back from school, so i called the school, they called the police, and to cut a long horrible exsperience short he had been helping a younger boy fly his kite.. but what has occurred to me is that when orlando was 5 years old he was totally dependent on mummy and daddy, whilst horses, cats, birds and other animals are born and are independent within days.. so my question on natural selection is, how are we humuns still here?.
the rebel..
Horses and cats are not "independent within a couple of days". Cats take months to be dependent. Horses take years.
Animals that take care of their young have higher survival rates. Thus, they don't have to produce as many offspring.
not being familiar with either, my question is:.
what is the relationship between evolution and atheism?.
i'd love to hear from anyone and everyone, and also from any perspective.. without limiting the conversation in any way, i would of course also appreciate comments that are simple, clear, direct and correct (as i don't have the capacity to do a phd in evolution or atheism)..
One is the explanation for the diverse speciation we see on our planet.
The other is a lack of a belief in a God.
i think the time to be agnostic is when you have evidence on both sides of a claim.
for example, i'm agnostic about the existence of a historical jesus.
i think a reasonable case can be made that jesus was a man who was turned into a legend over a period of a couple of decades.
KateWild,
But doesn't the paper Crofty cited show that using simple organic materials an amino acid itself can amplify the concentration of one particular chiral form of reaction product? Wouldn't that imply the process doesn't have to be guided?
i think the time to be agnostic is when you have evidence on both sides of a claim.
for example, i'm agnostic about the existence of a historical jesus.
i think a reasonable case can be made that jesus was a man who was turned into a legend over a period of a couple of decades.
KateWild,
Let me make sure I'm understanding your position correctly as we're talking about what is more likely. On one hand you have the odds of racemic mixtures proceeding with no guidance. On the other hand you have the odds of an intelligent being guiding the process.
Is that correct?
i think the time to be agnostic is when you have evidence on both sides of a claim.
for example, i'm agnostic about the existence of a historical jesus.
i think a reasonable case can be made that jesus was a man who was turned into a legend over a period of a couple of decades.
Yes, a claim can "match" reality. It can be an accurate descriptor of that which exists. I'm quite shocked you're trying to play hide the ball with the definition of truth. When people use the word "truth" this is what they mean. It's what I mean. It's the definition you'll find in the dictionary.
Under Coherence Theory the Harry Potter novels would be "true" since they're internally consistent. That's not what I'm talking about when I'm addressing God claims. Many God concepts are coherent. That doesn't make them real.
noun, plural truths [trooth z, trooths]
i think the time to be agnostic is when you have evidence on both sides of a claim.
for example, i'm agnostic about the existence of a historical jesus.
i think a reasonable case can be made that jesus was a man who was turned into a legend over a period of a couple of decades.
I assesd the probability of an intelligent being guiding evolution by my study of chemistry.
What in your study of chemistry led you to the conclusion that an intelligent being was guiding evolution?
i think the time to be agnostic is when you have evidence on both sides of a claim.
for example, i'm agnostic about the existence of a historical jesus.
i think a reasonable case can be made that jesus was a man who was turned into a legend over a period of a couple of decades.
The definition of "knowledge" is justified true belief.
We've gone over at least a dozen times before, truth is the label we apply to claims that match reality. In order to see if a claim matches reality - we LOOK AT REALITY! e.g. - evidence.
That's not circular reasoning. It's modus ponens. And without that assessment a belief can't be justified.
I genuinely don't know why you have such difficulty getting your head around this. The validity of any tool is how well it performs its intended function. It's not circular reasoning to asses a hammer by how well it drive nails. The same is true of reason and evidence. Their validity is assessed by their explanatory and predictive abilities.
i think the time to be agnostic is when you have evidence on both sides of a claim.
for example, i'm agnostic about the existence of a historical jesus.
i think a reasonable case can be made that jesus was a man who was turned into a legend over a period of a couple of decades.
KateWild,
My question isn't just one of chemistry. It's how did you asses the probability of an intellectual being guiding evolution? How can you tell the difference of naturally occurring evolution from guided evolution? And how did you determine that guided evolution was more likely?
Also, why are you calling the intelligence "God". How have you ruled out more naturalistic explanations such as aliens?
i think the time to be agnostic is when you have evidence on both sides of a claim.
for example, i'm agnostic about the existence of a historical jesus.
i think a reasonable case can be made that jesus was a man who was turned into a legend over a period of a couple of decades.
KateWild,
How have you determined "it's more probable there is an intellectual being responsible for guiding evolution in the early stages of amino acid formation"?
And how does an "intellectual being" get you to God?
