Posted on 02/26/2006 9:12:24 PM PST by ibme
You suckup!
From what I gather, at some time in the past a theistic philosopher decided there were two realities, one with God - which he called the 1st reality and one without God - which he labeled 2nd reality. Of course the existence of these two realities is completely based upon the philosopher's personal opinions, which are highly biased towards his self labeled 1st reality.
With a little application of an 'appeal to emotion' fallacy (a touch of poisoning the well, a smidgen of prejudicial language) the philosopher has managed to convince others that if and only if you believe in God do you reside in the 'good' reality (1st reality) while others live in the despicable 2nd reality. (Those that live in the 2nd reality are obviously out of touch with the 'real' reality (1st reality) so don't recognize it)
Personally I prefer to live life in the 3rd reality - all reality outside my consciousness is an emergent property of some recently ingested underdone potatoes. I start cooking my potatoes fully and the rest of you disappear.
Do you realize that the probability of someone posting the above number in a probability thread is exactly 1711?
Only on FR. Its less elsewhere.
Cute.. very creative.. I go the other way. I prefer Zero reality.. The 1st, 2nd and aleged 3rd reality(s) are for humans for a time.. Zero reality is what some will end up with, I think..
I search for that one.. and hope to find it..
Which is it, "proved scientifically" or "observed?" Or did you mean "proved" as a layman might use the term?
If you truly meant "proved scientifically" then here is an answer to your challenge:
Source: http://wwwrses.anu.edu.au/environment/eePages/eeDating/HumanEvol_info.html
But if you meant "proved" as a layman might use the term, or "observed" as in "I won't believe it if I didn't stand there myself and watch it happen and probably not even then," well happy strawman to you!
You just want to argue Ichy..
No, actually, I'd rather come to an understanding.
But I must confess to having misread your last post. When I replied to it, I had read it as saying that yours is the "1st reality", as in the primary one, and mine was the "2nd reality", as in somehow "second class" or inferior. I had either missed the "a" in the phrase "I'm into a 1st reality", or I had read it as if it were a "the", which would alter the meaning.
Now that I look at it again, however, I see that that's not what you were saying, you were just saying that we've got two different "realities", and you weren't saying that one was "more real" than the other. I apologize for the misreading, which was responsible for the direction of my response.
You know we live on different planets..
I know what you're trying to say here, but I disagree with it, as well as the idea behind the "different realities" comment.
Unless the internet reaches a whole lot farther than advertised, we *are* on the same planet, we *do* live in the same actual reality, even though we look at it differently. I highly doubt you are a postmodernist, subscribe to the Whorf Hypothesis, or follow a form of new-age or idealist philosophy which has "personal realities" as a tenet, so it's unlikely you actually believe this in a literal sense. And if there is one reality which we all inhabit, it's important for all of us to do our best to determine what it is, rather than to employ excuses for avoiding that task like shrugging about how reality is just "different" for each of us because we view it differently.
You could care less what I believe..
Incorrect.
I know where you are coming from, more or less,
I don't think you know that nearly as well as you believe you do. For example, you raise doubts when you say things like:
you would have become "born again" to vaguely understand me.. I know that..
Actually, I don't have any trouble understanding the "born again".
So I accept you on that level.. And you accept me as a Moonbat..
No, I just don't think you're putting enough effort into it.
Thats the way its supposed to be.. Everything is just the way its supposed to be..
You forgot to sing "Kumbaya" at the end of that.
The Sheep MUST be separated from the goats.. and they ARE..
I know you believe this. See, I *do* understand you.
Ugh OH!.. I feel a prayer rising up from within me.. I'm grabbing the arms of my chair.. HERE IT COMES>>>.
Be careful when it's time to handle the snakes.
1) The moth that you describe is still a moth after it mutated.
That's not "one important fact", that's irrelevant to the claim. His moth example *is* an example evolution. Period. The fact that it didn't manage to make a moth into a "non-moth" doesn't change that. You know, you *really* ought to toodle off and *learn* something about evolutionary biology before you attempt to critique it.
2)The Canine that you described is still a Canine.
Yeah, so? And humans, which evolved from ape ancestors, are still primates. It's still evolution. Do you even *know* what evolution is? You seem not to.
You're playing one of the creationists' favorite pointless word games. If we show you domestic dogs evolved from wolf ancestors, you ignore the fact that it's no longer a wolf and you whine, "but it's still a canine, so that don't mean nothin'". When we show you the overwhelming evidence that canines evolved from non-canine ancestors, you whine, "it's still in the carnivore group, so that don't mean nothin'". When we show you the overwhelming evidence that the carnivores evolved from non-carnivore ancestors, you whine, "it's still a mammal, so that don't mean nothin'". When we show you the overwhelming evidence that mammals evolved from reptilian ancestors, you whine, "it's still a vertebrate, so that don't mean nothin'". Rinse, repeat.
I contend that Micro evolution is clearly a fact and no scientist has ever and will never prove Macro Evolution, (A dog becoming a Lion) has ever occurred.
First, science does not deal in proof. Nor is "proof" an obtainable standard for any endeavor in this real world.
Second, the truth of "Macro Evolution" has been established by vast mountains of overwhelming evidence along multiple independently cross-confirming lines -- I guess the creationist pamphlets you got your "education" from sort of "forgot" to mention that to you.
Furthermore, only someone grossly ignorant of science would think that anyone has ever claimed that lions evolved from dogs, or that one would have to establish the truth of that transition in order to "prove Macro-Evolution".
In short, it would be nice if you knew what in the hell you were talking about.
I challenge you to recite one instance where it can be proven scientifically, (Observed) that any species has ever become another species trough evolution.
Glad to oblige: Within human observation the mammal species on the left has split/branched to spin off the mammal species on the right:
Sure, they're both still canids, but the point is that the domestic dog is *not* a gray wolf any longer, they're now something else -- a different species. Domestic dogs are not wolves.
For other examples, see Observed Instances of Speciation and Some More Observed Speciation Events. If you want something even more drastic, however, you're making an unrealistic request -- the amount of evolutionary change that can be observed over human history (on the order of thousands of years) will be relatively small compared to long-term evolutionary change which requires on the order of millions of years. It's like asking geologists to "directly observe" a full mountain range forming starting from flat terrain, or asking astronomers to "directly observe" the full life cycle of a star.
Nonetheless, there are many ways to confirm the existence and behavior and reality of long-term processes such as these, and the evidence for evolutionary common descent is vast and overwhelming. For a description of how such scenarios are confirmed beyond reasonable doubt, see Explaining the Scientific Method, which discusses scientific validation methods in general, and specifically in the context of evolution.
You should also read that in order to clear up a massive misunderstanding you have -- you wrote, "scientifically proven, (observed)", as if you were under the impression that direct observation of a process is synonymous with being able to "scientifically prove" it. This is entirely false.
I won't hold my breath!
And I won't hold *my* breath that you'll gain any illumination from the many replies you'll receive.
Oh, like you don't absolutely have to have a "Pocket Fisherman" and a "Mr. Microphone"
Snakes!.. LoL.. Oh! I handle snakes all the time on Free Republic..
Kinda like snakes, used to be one..
Don't mind me Ichy I just like to spit on my betters shoes..
Drives them nutz.. I know I'm a bad man, a sinner really..
Is playing with snakes a bad thing?..
The real reason he, and others, expend such time and energy convincing themselves is rooted in the dire implications for them of the truth of the contrary. It's not what is true. It's what do I wish to be true. The fact such a large body of respected men, driven by this desire (read summaries of their biographies), makes it that much easier.
There's no reason I can't take the most absurd theory - that the earth is made of cheese - and interpret all incoming evidence to support that postulate. This one - biological macroevolution - just happens to fill, if true, a common desire among many: to obviate final accountability to a supreme and righteous Diety. That is the real reason for its popularity, and why it has become the dominant hermeneutic for interpretation of natural evidence.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.