Oh, I have. I actually believe in Theistic Evolution. And Catholicism created the scientific method.
But I know it is just a model, and I know that there were no human beings around to witness, say, the rise of the mammals (which by definition, happened long before our species evolved).
Which makes *any* creation story- mythical. What is curious is when you look at the similarities rather than the differences. Apparently even the ancient Hebrews could see fish were less highly evolved than pigs.
We have more data points than they did, is all. And can fill in some of the other gaps, beyond which they had no racial memory. But it is still just a story, still just a model that fits the data points we know. Could be entirely wrong for all we know; we are, after all, finite and biased beings.
It is always important to remember that what you don't know, is a larger set of the universe, space, and time, than what you do know.
Pope Celestine V, 800 years ago, resigned for *exactly* the same reasons. Ok, he was less than 10 months short of death, but something tells me Pope Benedict isn't likely to live to see his 87th birthday either.
Well, he was the first Pope to have a Twitter account. But that's not saying much, given what his predecessor was going through medically when Twitter was created.
I'm not sure evolution exists outside of as a philosophy. I know of no human beings who have lived for more than 2 million years, nor do we have historical record before the beginning of our species.
It's a pretty good model though. But one should not confuse model with reality.
But that, in and of itself, IS an ethics/morality- it is the statement that ethics and morality in that system is subjective. Personally, I can't understand why anybody would think morality should be subjective in an objective universe.
Everything has something to say about morals, if you understand the concept of rational objective morality. It always amazes me that people who can understand the concept of objective science, think that morality can possibly be subjective in an objective universe.
Just in case this reply went to the wrong level: What I was searching for were *logical consistency* and *a good model of human behavior* in my religion. Buddhism and Catholicism won out; the other contenders all had logical inconsistencies that made them unbelievable (especially atheistic scientism- the universe is observable except when it comes to morality, which is the only place it is irrational? How does that make anything close to sense? Not to mention, all moral authorities should be rejected but scientific authorities should be accepted and their "proved" hypotheses should never be retested?!?!?!? And they call fundamentalists irrational!)
I fail to see how the sisters and mothers of homosexual men having more children, make that a survival trait for the *MEN*. In fact, that article actually agrees with me, saying the main strategy for spreading genetic homosexuality is to *sacrifice* the men, and make the women more likely to reproduce.
Having said that, I thank you greatly for giving me the evolutionary proof for feminism.
I've got 2000 years worth of observed data that convinced me it is correct, is why I make that assumption.
Atheistic modern science has what, maybe 400 years or so? If that. The grand majority of atheist traditions have a tendency to start with the assumption that people in the past were all idiots and had nothing worthwhile to say at all.
Slashdot Mirror
PEBCASW? Problem exists between chair and steering wheel?
Oh, I have. I actually believe in Theistic Evolution. And Catholicism created the scientific method.
But I know it is just a model, and I know that there were no human beings around to witness, say, the rise of the mammals (which by definition, happened long before our species evolved).
Which makes *any* creation story- mythical. What is curious is when you look at the similarities rather than the differences. Apparently even the ancient Hebrews could see fish were less highly evolved than pigs.
We have more data points than they did, is all. And can fill in some of the other gaps, beyond which they had no racial memory. But it is still just a story, still just a model that fits the data points we know. Could be entirely wrong for all we know; we are, after all, finite and biased beings.
It is always important to remember that what you don't know, is a larger set of the universe, space, and time, than what you do know.
Pope Celestine V, 800 years ago, resigned for *exactly* the same reasons. Ok, he was less than 10 months short of death, but something tells me Pope Benedict isn't likely to live to see his 87th birthday either.
Well, he was the first Pope to have a Twitter account. But that's not saying much, given what his predecessor was going through medically when Twitter was created.
"Philosophy having no morality doesn't mean its adherents are expected to have no morality."
I didn't say that. I said that a philosophy that claims to have no morality, is teaching that morality is subjective rather than objective.
I have read them, that's how I know they're as biased as any other invention of mankind.
I'm not the one with the closed mind, if you think peer reviewed journals are anything close to data.
Peer reviewed journals are what makes it a philosophy.
I'm not sure evolution exists outside of as a philosophy. I know of no human beings who have lived for more than 2 million years, nor do we have historical record before the beginning of our species.
It's a pretty good model though. But one should not confuse model with reality.
The claim to "no morality" is in and of itself a morality: a draconian freedom of subjectivity.
But that, in and of itself, IS an ethics/morality- it is the statement that ethics and morality in that system is subjective. Personally, I can't understand why anybody would think morality should be subjective in an objective universe.
Everything has something to say about morals, if you understand the concept of rational objective morality. It always amazes me that people who can understand the concept of objective science, think that morality can possibly be subjective in an objective universe.
All of science is philosophy.
Just because you can see something that looks like your model, neither means that your model or your eyes are correct.
First you have to define the word "two". That's a model.
Thought Hippocrates was a Greek pagan, not an atheist. Try again.
Epicurus didn't have an objective definition of evil. Neither do you.
Yep. Second hand fables. Kind of like most published science today.
The goat's gibblets are just for dramatic effect.
Really? How does evolution explain a benzene ring?
There are certain precursors to life that are not explained by evolution.
Just in case this reply went to the wrong level: What I was searching for were *logical consistency* and *a good model of human behavior* in my religion. Buddhism and Catholicism won out; the other contenders all had logical inconsistencies that made them unbelievable (especially atheistic scientism- the universe is observable except when it comes to morality, which is the only place it is irrational? How does that make anything close to sense? Not to mention, all moral authorities should be rejected but scientific authorities should be accepted and their "proved" hypotheses should never be retested?!?!?!? And they call fundamentalists irrational!)
I have the theorem that 2+2=lambda for given universes. How is that an absolute, immutable, unquestionable truth?
A theorem is just a testable hypothesis.
I fail to see how the sisters and mothers of homosexual men having more children, make that a survival trait for the *MEN*. In fact, that article actually agrees with me, saying the main strategy for spreading genetic homosexuality is to *sacrifice* the men, and make the women more likely to reproduce.
Having said that, I thank you greatly for giving me the evolutionary proof for feminism.
I've got 2000 years worth of observed data that convinced me it is correct, is why I make that assumption.
Atheistic modern science has what, maybe 400 years or so? If that. The grand majority of atheist traditions have a tendency to start with the assumption that people in the past were all idiots and had nothing worthwhile to say at all.
No, because evolution isn't about what is. It is a logical deduction from *clues*, a model of what might have happened, not what actually happened.