Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

@Leadfoot,

my ability to decipher english has a really good BULLSHIT DETECTOR, and its always going off whenever you are opening up.

You should look up TERRA AMATA its a site that is about 400K years old and was occupied by Homo, erectus or neanderthalensis. No skyscrapers but still actual crafted dwellings (some pretty substantial)

1 Reply

@farmerman,

I see that in the same way as the conjecture on the 'Multiverses' Built on complete conjecture and virtually no evidence, same as in Terra Amata.

Most of the searches I did for first human built structures dated to around 10kyrs.

Quote:

A very different interpretation of the site was given later by another archeologist, Paola Villa, who dedicated part of her doctoral thesis to the same site. She argued that the conclusions reached by De Lumley were more conjectural than compelling.[4] She said it was equally likely that the stones were naturally deposited through stream flow, soil creep or some other natural process.[5]

Villa also argued that stone artifacts from the different proposed living floors can be fitted together, showing that artifacts have moved up and down through the sediment column.[6] Thus, the supposed living floor assemblages are most likely mixtures of artifacts from different time periods that have come to rest at particular levels. There was, she said, therefore compelling evidence that the site was subjected to relatively invasive post-depositional processes, which may also be responsible for the stone 'arrangements'.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

brisnjakub commented earlier

Quote:

unless we can prove matter creates intelligent thought we might not be able to talk about human intelligence in a scientific way. Does that mean philosophy is not science or is it Super Natural Science?

Could philosophy be considered the study of intelligence . What is your opinion? I am very interested.

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

I see that in the same way as the conjecture on multiverses built on complete conjecture and virtually no evidence. same as in Terra amata.

Multiverses are necessary for the structure of everything we can sense. The math of string theory is telling physicists something. The problem is, that it brings in more levels of complexity that eventually has to be represented in the reality of the structure of space and matter. Draw a picture of that structure and the math just falls into place. Unlike math the picture always has to make sense to all our senses. I can imagine what the structure of space and matter looks like so that the constants of physics fall out, and it requires a multiverse. I am not saying either one of you are right when you are discussing this evidence, but don't be afraid to think outside the box. I think that's what is keeping scientists from completing their Theories of evolution, high energy physics, and relativity.

2 Replies

@brianjakub,

evolution is a theory. In science, a theory is aunifying explanation for a whole set of related facts. In a theory, all the evidence supports, and NO evidence refutes.
A theory i not "conjecture" nor is it ever "completed". We alwys discover new evidence that supports evolution.

0 Replies

@brianjakub,

Quote:

I can imagine what the structure of space and matter looks like so that the constants of physics fall out, and it requires a multiverse.

I'm with you up to the point where the constants of physics fall out (although Gravity is still a bit murky). That is all classical physics and very consistent and as far as I know, requires only the one universe we know about.

String theory, which requires other dimensions that we cannot detect in any way, currently exists only in mathematics, as do many other theoretic entities. So I'd like to know what in your view requires a multiverse.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

All we have to be able to detect is the surface of the universes. If you consider every atom a universe of its own string theory starts to turn into a picture you can imagine.

1 Reply

@brianjakub,

I guess I could imagine an atom as a universe (I loved the galaxy in a marble in MIB) but I have utterly failed to imagine the 11 dimensions of the string theory.

Some theorists say 'Just imagine them as slices of bread in a loaf.' as if that should prove anything. That just doesn't do it for me.

2 Replies

@Leadfoot,

The Universe is not limited by your imagination. The I can't conceive of that, or I can't imagine it, or I don't understand it argument isn't a good one. It is however one that religious types use all the time.

Some people can conceive, imagine and understand complex theories.

2 Replies

@izzythepush,

Oh really?
You and your domestic partner google have the answers to everything. Those 'religious types' just don't know how to 'search' or they would find the answers to everything as well.

As I said go to the Museum of Natural History in Philadelphia. Go through the atrium, past the metal detector turn left-Now you and google can start explaining.

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

Quote:

The Universe is not limited by your imagination. The I can't conceive of that, or I can't imagine it, or I don't understand it argument isn't a good one. It is however one that religious types use all the time.

Some people can conceive, imagine and understand complex theories.

Congrats, that is the strangest and most interesting reply I've ever had, or heard for that matter. You simultaneously condemn my ability to scientifically evaluate a mathematical concept as valid in physics, condemn religion, and both laud and validate imagination in one very short paragraph.

When I'm talking theology (which I wasn't in this case) I'm usually attacked for using too much imagination. So are you arguing for the validity of theology or condemning it?

But to elaborate on what I was saying, I reject String Theory for the same reason atheists claim to reject God. They do so because they presumably recognize only the laws of physics and it's evidence. Since we're talking physics, there is NO evidence for String theory.. It is only a mathematical construct. Infinity also exists in math but not in physics.

Of course I CAN imagine more than 4 dimensions in math and use them all the time in programming - A 10 dimensional array of variables for instance.

But if you want to talk Theology, there is obviously at least one more dimension we don't know about.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

The only thing I'm arguing against is your insistence on defining the universe based on your own limitations.

The argument pro/for the existence of God I leave to other people.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

Only limitation there was using the same standards of evidence as science when talking physics .

But you are right, all that seems to go away when talking QM which I find inconsistent.

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

I guess I could imagine an atom as a universe (I loved the galaxy in a marble in MIB) but I have utterly failed to imagine the 11 dimensions of the string theory.

Some theorists say 'Just imagine them as slices of bread in a loaf.' as if that should prove anything. That just doesn't do it for me.

Here is my picture of 11 dimensions. http://embeddeddimensions.com/#_Toc435250732

2 Replies

@brianjakub,

give em enough line and they will reveal themselves.

Your manifesto is mostly doubletalk BJ.

3 Replies

@farmerman,

Doubletalk? Some of it just plain gobbledygook.

1 Reply

@brianjakub,

Liked your explanation for the speed of light limitation.
Don't know if it's right, but logical.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

It's just a theory. I just wanted to see if I can make it work with the Bible you can throw that stuff in the garbage if you want. Read the part about ohms volts and amps and see how the fine structure constant backs out. Look at how gravity becomes a change in spatial density. Read how it fits with the bVg theory and the big bang. The whole thing works without ID, I just thought it was interesting that it kind of worked with that also.

0 Replies

@parados,

Oh, I never claimed to be a writer, it probably is gobbledygook. I just got a picture in my mind one day and tried to explain what I was seeing. You can throw God out of it and say the structure of space and matter came out of the big bang and the interior of stars for all I care. I'm just saying the structure could possibly explain a lot of things.

1 Reply

@brianjakub,

It is gobbledygook. It's like you picked up a bunch of physics terms and just threw them together with some childish ideas while having no concept what the terms really mean or how they relate in actual physics. Your ideas don't match at all with the actual science that is being done.

1 Reply

Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know