₦airaland Forum

DeepSight:
I hope you know even an atheist can point out problems with for example, the theory of evolution, without it being the case that he is trying to say "God did it."

Well first of all atheism is older than both the theory of evolution and the big bang theory. Which means that evolution and the big bang are scientific facts and no atheistic philosophies.

Secondly, not all atheists subscribe to evolution and the big bang theory.

Also, what are these problems?

Everyday247:
Well first of all atheism is older than both the theory of evolution and the big bang theory.

Secondly, not all atheists subscribe to evolution and the big bang theory.

Also, what are these problems?

I was giving an analogy. The point being that not everyone who queries current scientific understanding is saying "God did it."

It needn't be about either the ToE or the BB Theory.

DeepSight:
I was giving an analogy. The point being that not everyone who queries current scientific understanding is saying "God did it."

It needn't be about either the ToE or the BB Theory.

Okay then it looks like I'm the one who misunderstood. My bad.

Why are these evolutionary problems?

Everyday247:
Okay then it looks like I'm the one who misunderstood. My bad.

Why are these evolutionary problems?

Well, on this thread I have cited the problems with the evolution of sexual reproduction for example.

As to the topic of the thread I have cited the paucity of strong explanations for much instinctual behaviour.

This doesn't mean I am saying there aren't explanations. The generality of instinctual behaviour can be easily explained. However there are some patterns which are difficult to explain.

DeepSight:
Well, on this thread I have cited the problems with the evolution of sexual reproduction for example.

As to the topic of the thread I have cited the paucity of strong explanations for much instinctual behaviour.

This doesn't mean I am saying there aren't explanations. The generality of instinctual behaviour can be easily explained. However there are some patterns which are difficult to explain.

I think you are blurring the line between "we currently do not have enough understanding of something" and "It's impossible for something to occur under certain conditions".

Take consciousness as an example, we know that it's a by product of the brain. We know that neurones firing are responsible for thought processes. We know the parts responsible for emotions, logical reasoning, senses, memory, involuntary actions etc. But that doesn't we fully understand how it works. We know the working principles of the brain.

But we can't for example extract memory from a person's mind and play it like a video.

Everyday247:
I think you are blurring the line between "we currently do not have enough understanding of something" and "It's impossible for something to occur under certain conditions".

Take consciousness as an example, we know that it's a by product of the brain. We know that neurones firing are responsible for thought processes. We know the parts responsible for emotions, logical reasoning, senses, memory, involuntary actions etc. But that doesn't we fully understand how it works. We know the working principles of the brain.

Well said but consciousness is another very difficult problem and I don't think it is right to say we know how it is spawned. It remains a mystery and this is why you have what is called "the hard problem of consciousness."

But we can't for example extract memory from a person's mind and play it like a video.

Wouldn't that be wonderful?

There are many things that are impossible with our current scientific knowledge which will become possible in future though.

One thing I personally believe is that everything that happens is recorded in literal video in the light around us.

This stands to scientific reason because light carries images and this is how we see, when those images come into contact with our eyes and get interpreted by our brains.

What is needed is the appropriate tool to download images from light and it will become possible to even view events from the past. If you think this is far fetched, consider that when you look at a star you are actually seeing an image from the very far past because it has taken that light millions of years to travel to you. In fact the star you are looking at may have actually ceased to exist.

Thus you never can tell, it may one day be possible to view memories like video.

DeepSight:
Well said but consciousness is another very difficult problem and I don't think it is right to say we know how it is spawned. It remains a mystery and this is why you have what is called "the hard problem of consciousness."



Wouldn't that be wonderful?

There are many things that are impossible with our current scientific knowledge which will become possible in future though.

One thing I personally believe is that everything that happens is recorded in literal video in the light around us.

This stands to scientific reason because light carries images and this is how we see, when those images come into contact with our eyes and get interpreted by our brains.

What is needed is the appropriate tool to download images from light and it will become possible to even view events from the past. If you think this is far fetched, consider that when you look at a star you are actually seeing an image from the very far past because it has taken that light millions of years to travel to you. In fact the star you are looking at may have actually ceased to exist.

Thus you never can tell, it may one day be possible to view memories like video.

Every thing you've said here is pretty much accurate.

The "hard problem of consciousness" is a problem caused by our current limited scientific understanding.

DeepSight:
I believe there are logical answers, even scientific ones. However I find the set of answers most present me with unsatisfactory.

Note that I said this -



The word "inexplicable" which I used. By that I simply meant pretty hard to explain and in some instances perhaps almost impossible, with current scientific knowledge.

I would be interested in your take, thanks.
Good morning.

Good morning to you too.

The scientific and logical explanation for the instincts you consider as inexplicable will certainly require some expertise in evolutionary biology and genetics. I'm not an expert in any biology related field, but I do know some science, and more importantly I'm a rational thinker, so I may still have a few things to contribute.

I think there are four important factors about evolution which when understood can help get a general idea of how the phenomenon operate (without getting into specific details): variation, inheritance, selection and time.
Variation tells us that individual organism within a population can exhibit different physical and physiological traits in reaction to the environment. Inheritance is about organisms being able to pass certain heritable traits to their offsprings. Selection tells us that individuals with certain heritable traits which are advantageous to their survival are likely to be the ones who survive and therefore pass such advantageous traits to their offspring in the process, so that eventually the advantageous traits become dominant among the organism population, with the less advantageous traits dying out gradually. Finally the time factor make us know that over generations (which could be thousands or millions of years) the accumulation of small advantageous traits leads to marked changes in the overall characteristics of the organism population, so that a different species of organism is essentially produced after a sufficiently long period.
While there are many details to consider and certainly many questions to ask, but if you put these four factors/principles together, they provide a logical framework and explanation for the diversity (and similarity) of organisms we see today.

Having provided a simple summary of the principle of evolution, let's now proceed to address your "inexplicable" instincts.
It seems to me that perhaps the most important thing you need to understand is how instinct work generally. I stand to be corrected, but I think most instincts work through some sort of biological stimulus that push us to attain a certain physical or biological state. Take hunger or sex for instance, these instincts basically use our biological processes to create stimulus that we then have to respond to. We usually do not feel comfortable until we have responded to the stimulus.

Can you already see how there could be some internal biological disturbance (stimulus) that forces a new born tortoise to seek a particular environment in order for the stimulus to be satisfied? Or how a puppy is stimulated to seek something to suck on so as to feel relieved?

AlbertNewton:
Good morning to you too.

The scientific and logical explanation for the instincts you consider as inexplicable will certainly require some expertise in evolutionary biology and genetics. I'm not an expert in any biology related field, but I do know some science, and more importantly I'm a rational thinker, so I may still have a few things to contribute.

I think there are four important factors about evolution which when understood can help get a general idea of how the phenomenon operate (without getting into specific details): variation, inheritance, selection and time.
Variation tells us that individual organism within a population can exhibit different physical and physiological traits in reaction to the environment. Inheritance is about organisms being able to pass certain heritable traits to their offsprings. Selection tells us that individuals with certain heritable traits which are advantageous to their survival are likely to be the ones who survive and therefore pass such advantageous traits to their offspring in the process, so that eventually the advantageous traits become dominant among the organism population, with the less advantageous traits dying out gradually. Finally the factor make us know that over generations (which could be thousands or millions of years) the accumulation of small advantageous traits leads to marked changes in the overall population, so that a different species of organism is essentially produced.
While there are many details to consider and certainly many questions to ask, but if you put these four factors together, they provide a logical explanation for the diversity (and similarity) of organisms we see today.

Having provided a simple summary of the principle of evolution, let's now proceed to address your "inexplicable" instincts.
It seems to me that perhaps the most important thing you need to understand is how instinct work generally. I stand to be corrected, but I think most instincts work through some sort of biological stimulus that push us to attain a certain physical or biological state. Take hunger or sex for instance, these instincts basically use our biological processes to create stimulus that we then have to respond to. We usually do not feel comfortable until we have responded to the stimulus.

Can you already see how there could be some internal biological disturbance (stimulus) that forces a new born tortoise to seek a particular environment in order for the stimulus to be satisfied? Or how a puppy is stimulated to seek something to suck on so as to feel relieved?

Thank you. You have actually touched on what I believe to be the "suitable explanation" which I referred to earlier. But it has little to do with evolution and something to do with the stimulus you mentioned. That's what I was waiting for people to put their finger on, but most kept huffing and puffing about natural selection.

Having said that, there still remain mysteries in this instinctive behaviour. True, a pup may feel a pang of hunger and seek to satisfy it. That is stimulus. What no one mentioned so far is that it has a nose and may smell that breast and it's contents. So it has come equipped to detect the possible source from which it may assuage that stimulus. A similar explanation may suffice for the turtle.

However the reason I cited multiple examples is because when taken together it still seems that something else is at work. Let us look at the instinctive climb of the marsupial to its mother's pouch for example. It is just born. It knows nothing. And yet it begins to head for a pouch which it could not logically know of. Yet it heads for it and ensconces itself there. This behaviour is very hard to explain.

Even harder to explain is the behaviour of Salmon, which I articulated in the first page of this thread.

I am not here to say "God did it" because while I believe in the existence of God (quite different from the usual or Abrahamic definition though) I don't believe that God directly created this world. What I do however detect is the influence of some programming in all of these things, a definite pattern which is beyond the randomness that some suggest and which also beats the explanations suggested by the Theory of Evolution and Natural Selection all too often.

AlbertNewton:
By describing such instincts as "inexplicable", is that based on your own ignorance of what the explanation is or are you making a claim that the instincts cannot be explained by anyone ?
Are you trying to come to a logical understanding of the underlying processes (physical, biological and chemical) behind such complex instincts or you've already concluded that there is no plausible explanation and want to make a point out of that conclusion ?
Have you tried to make findings on what relevant experts have to say about the "inexplicable" instincts or you are more interested in what Nairalanders (many of whom most likely know little about evolutionary biology and genetics) have to say ?
While many natural phenomena are clearly complex to understand, do you believe it is possible to gain some scientific, logical understanding of such phenomena and do you believe that scientists have already made a lot of progress in understanding the universe we live in ?

Your answers to the questions above will guide how I engage with the thought-provoking topic you have created.

Good answer. DeepSight I couldn't have said it better. I am confused why you think these instincts are inexplicable.

LordReed:
Good answer. DeepSight I couldn't have said it better. I am confused why you think these instincts are inexplicable.

Please see my further interaction with him above.

DeepSight:
I believe there are logical answers, even scientific ones. However I find the set of answers most present me with unsatisfactory.

Note that I said this -



The word "inexplicable" which I used. By that I simply meant pretty hard to explain and in some instances perhaps almost impossible, with current scientific knowledge.

I would be interested in your take, thanks.
Good morning.

AlbertNewton:
Good morning to you too.

The scientific and logical explanation for the instincts you consider as inexplicable will certainly require some expertise in evolutionary biology and genetics. I'm not an expert in any biology related field, but I do know some science, and more importantly I'm a rational thinker, so I may still have a few things to contribute.

I think there are four important factors about evolution which when understood can help get a general idea of how the phenomenon operate (without getting into specific details): variation, inheritance, selection and time.
Variation tells us that individual organism within a population can exhibit different physical and physiological traits in reaction to the environment. Inheritance is about organisms being able to pass certain heritable traits to their offsprings. Selection tells us that individuals with certain heritable traits which are advantageous to their survival are likely to be the ones who survive and therefore pass such advantageous traits to their offspring in the process, so that eventually the advantageous traits become dominant among the organism population, with the less advantageous traits dying out gradually. Finally the time factor make us know that over generations (which could be thousands or millions of years) the accumulation of small advantageous traits leads to marked changes in the overall characteristics of the organism population, so that a different species of organism is essentially produced after a sufficiently long period.
While there are many details to consider and certainly many questions to ask, but if you put these four factors/principles together, they provide a logical framework and explanation for the diversity (and similarity) of organisms we see today.

Having provided a simple summary of the principle of evolution, let's now proceed to address your "inexplicable" instincts.
It seems to me that perhaps the most important thing you need to understand is how instinct work generally. I stand to be corrected, but I think most instincts work through some sort of biological stimulus that push us to attain a certain physical or biological state. Take hunger or sex for instance, these instincts basically use our biological processes to create stimulus that we then have to respond to. We usually do not feel comfortable until we have responded to the stimulus.

Can you already see how there could be some internal biological disturbance (stimulus) that forces a new born tortoise to seek a particular environment in order for the stimulus to be satisfied? Or how a puppy is stimulated to seek something to suck on so as to feel relieved?

DeepSight:
Thank you. You have actually touched on what I believe to be the "suitable explanation" which I referred to earlier. But it has little to do with evolution and something to do with the stimulus you mentioned. That's what I was waiting for people to put their finger on, but most kept huffing and puffing about natural selection.

Having said that, there still remain mysteries in this instinctive behaviour. True, a pup may feel a pang of hunger and seek to satisfy it. That is stimulus. What no one mentioned so far is that it has a nose and may smell that breast and it's contents. So it has come equipped to detect the possible source from which it may assuage that stimulus. A similar explanation may suffice for the turtle.

However the reason I cited multiple examples is because when taken together it still seems that something else is at work. Let us look at the instinctive climb of the marsupial to its mother's pouch for example. It is just born. It knows nothing. And yet it begins to head for a pouch which it could not logically know of. Yet it heads for it and ensconces itself there. This behaviour is very hard to explain.

Even harder to explain is the behaviour of Salmon, which I articulated in the first page of this thread.

I am not here to say "God did it" because while I believe in the existence of God (quite different from the usual or Abrahamic definition though) I don't believe that God directly created this world. What I do however detect is the influence of some programming in all of these things, a definite pattern which is beyond the randomness that some suggest and which also beats the explanations suggested by the Theory of Evolution and Natural Selection all too often.

plaetton:
Of course there are sticky issues and questions about the complexity of evolution.
The very fact that we have these nagging questions does not in any way contradict the core theory. Rather is only encourages us to continue to seek scientifically rational answers.

Theory of evolution is not a complete A to Z package, because it is not dogma .
In fact, similar theories such as the the Atomic theory, Gravitational theory and Germ Theory are scientifically accepted ideas for which ongoing work continues.
Science is a series of Questions, with one answer always leading to new questions.
Everyday, new scientific advances continue to peer in and answer nagging questions of yesteryears.

Like I said earlier, if you have a scientifically rational explanation for these nagging questions, we are open to hearing it.

What we will not accept is the God of the Gaps answers.

It's running away from the question asking a questioner to answer a question directed at you about something you claim to understand better. If he knew the answers himself ,he wouldn't ask it in the first place

if I say ,owls only fly at night ,but another challenges this statement by mentioning the few ones seen flying during the day, and ask me why, it's my responsibilty to provide the answer or don't say anything if I can't .

You ,just like me ,are subscribed to TOE. The theory has its limitations.

And if the op is drawing attention to it, It's better you acknowledge that, and respond appropriately and not arrogantly dismissing him with God of the gaps accusation . I'm not a religious person myself but I find his question very valid. Any science that cannot be questioned is dogma, and anyone can question science.

I will end with this. If the TOE has some gaps in it, then it only means one thing, it's half truth and not the complete truth about how life has evolved from the very beginning.

We may have all of the answers later from rational science but also possible we may never know it all.

DeepSight:
Thank you. You have actually touched on what I believe to be the "suitable explanation" which I referred to earlier. But it has little to do with evolution and something to do with the stimulus you mentioned . That's what I was waiting for people to put their finger on, but most kept huffing and puffing about natural selection.

At the bolded, I think the way an organism responds to specific stimulus will be a consequence of some evolutionary processes, especially if that response is more or less automatic.

Having said that, there still remains mysteries in this instinctive behaviour. True, a pup may feel a pang of hunger and seek to satisfy it. That is stimulus. What no one mentioned so far is that it has a nose and may smell that breast and it's contents. So it has come equipped to detect the possible source from which it may assuage that stimulus. A similar explanation may suffice for the turtle.

Of course, it makes sense that evolution would have equipped an organism with appropriate biological endowment and capabilities to respond efficiently to a stimulus, especially when its survival crucially depends on the response to the stimulus.

However the reason I cited multiple examples is because when taken together it still seems that something else is at work. Let us look at the instinctive climb of the marsupial to its mother's pouch for example. It is just born. It knows nothing. And yet it begins to head for a pouch which it could not logically know of. Yet it heads for it and ensconces itself there. This behaviour is very hard to explain.

Even harder to explain is the behaviour of Salmon, which I articulated in the first page of this thread.

I am not here to say "God did it" because while I believe in the existence of God (quite different from the usual or Abrahamic definition though) I don't believe that God directly created this world. What I do however detect is the influence of some programming in all of these things, a definite pattern which is beyond the randomness that some suggest and which also beats the explanations suggested by the Theory of Evolution and Natural Selection all too often.

It seems we actually reason alike. While I know science can explain to a large extent how many natural phenomena work or operate, the deeper question of why such phenomena exist at all is often hard to answer. I also do not believe in the god of the bible (and by extension other popular gods) simply because of the stupid and evil things the biblical god did, which I cannot imagine the same being that created this universe to have done. I essentially see the stories in the bible as fables made up by some people for whatever reason.
But while I don't believe in biblical god, I do think there's something really complex and unfathomable behind the existence of the universe. When I think about how vast the tiny part of the universe that is observable to us is, it's hard for me to attribute it all to some mindless big bang and evolution. While big bang and evolution may explain the how to some extent, they do not satisfactorily tell us the why. Why does anything exists at all ?
Realising that the sun is about a million times bigger than earth, that there are hundreds of billions of such sun (stars) in a single galaxy (with each sun potentially having its own solar system with possibility of having planets with life around it, perhaps life as complex or possibly more complex than life on earth), and that there are trillions of such galaxies in a tiny portion of the universe is extremely mind-blowing. And if there are trillions of galaxies (this is established scientifically), who is to say there aren't quadrillions of universes ?
So I agree with you that beyond our simplistic big bang theory and evolution, there could be something much bigger going on that we may never get to understand fully !

Everyday247:
Well first of all atheism is older than both the theory of evolution and the big bang theory. Which means that evolution and the big bang are scientific facts and no atheistic philosophies.

Secondly, not all atheists subscribe to evolution and the big bang theory.

Also, what are these problems?

Atheism older than theory of evolution and the big bang?

No, that can't be true. Atheism is old as theism. They both feed from each other. One cannot exist without the other. Without theism, you won't know what it means to be an atheist and vice versa.

The talk that atheism is the default position is usually made by dogmatic atheist to postulate others from joining them.

AlbertNewton:
At the bolded, I think the way an organism responds to specific stimulus will be a consequence of some evolutionary processes, especially if that response is more or less automatic.

Of course, it makes sense that evolution would have equipped an organism with appropriate biological endowment and capabilities to respond efficiently to a stimulus, especially when its survival crucially depends on the response to the stimulus

It seems we actually reason alike. While I know science can explain to a large extent how many natural phenomena work or operate, the deeper question of why such phenomena exist at all is often hard to answer. I also do not believe in the god of the bible (and by extension other popular gods) simply because of the stupid and evil things the biblical god did, which I cannot imagine the same being that created this universe to have done. I essentially see the stories in the bible as fables made up by some people for whatever reason.
But while I don't believe in biblical god, I do think there's something really complex and unfathomable behind the existence of the universe. When I think about how vast the tiny part of the universe that is observable to us is, it's hard for me to attribute it all to some mindless big bang and evolution. While big bang and evolution may explain the how to some extent, they do not satisfactorily tell us the why. Why does anything exists at all ?
Realising that the sun is about a million times bigger than earth, that there are hundreds of billions of such sun (stars) in a single galaxy (with each sun potentially having its own solar system with possibility of having planets with life around it, perhaps life as complex or possibly more complex than life on earth), and that there are trillions of such galaxies in a tiny portion of the universe is extremely mind-blowing. And if there are trillions of galaxies (this is established scientifically), who is to say there aren't quadrillions of universes ?
So I agree with you that beyond our simplistic big bang theory and evolution, there could be something much bigger going on that we may never get to understand fully!

Beautiful and delightfully written. You took the red right out of my school of thought. It's exactly how I think, and it's heartwarming to read this from another.

@ LordReed, find this interesting? Re: other universes? Sound familiar?

@ AlbertNewton. I see what you did with your moniker. Einstein and Isaac.

AlbertNewton:
By describing such instincts as "inexplicable", is that based on your own ignorance of what the explanation is or are you making a claim that the instincts cannot be explained by anyone ?
Are you trying to come to a logical understanding of the underlying processes (physical, biological and chemical) behind such complex instincts or you've already concluded that there is no plausible explanation and want to make a point out of that conclusion ?
Have you tried to make findings on what relevant experts have to say about the "inexplicable" instincts or you are more interested in what Nairalanders (many of whom most likely know little about evolutionary biology and genetics) have to say ?
While many natural phenomena are clearly complex to understand, do you believe it is possible to gain some scientific, logical understanding of such phenomena and do you believe that scientists have already made a lot of progress in understanding the universe we live in ?

Your answers to the questions above will guide how I engage with the thought-provoking topic you have created.

Well said.
It's like coming Nairaland to hash out the thorny issues of The Theory of Evolution.
This is what I have been to say to him.
But you said it more beautifully.

triplechoice:
Atheism older than theory of evolution and the big bang?

No, that can't be true. Atheism is old as theism. They both feed from each other. One cannot exist without the other. Without theism, you won't know what it means to be an atheist and vice versa.

The talk that atheism is the default position is usually made by dogmatic atheist to postulate others from joining their them.

This doesn't invalidate what i was saying.

I was pointing out that TOE and BBT are not necessarily atheistic theories, because it looked like he was making the assumption that they were linked with atheism.

I never implied the bolded.

DeepSight:
Beautiful and delightfully written. You took the red right out of my school of thought. It's exactly how I think, and it's heartwarming to read this from another.

@ LordReed, find this interesting? Re: other universes? Sound familiar?

@ AlbertNewton. I see what you did with your moniker. Einstein and Isaac.

Science, by it's very nature ,never assumes a position of all-knowing. Science, let me repeat, is an series of questions .
Do we know more about the universe that we did 50yrs ago. We certainly do.
Will we know more in the next 50yrs ? Certainly yes.
If we assume your type of fantasy, speculative fantasy, that there must be underlying intelligence beyond our material understanding of the universe, then we stray from our honest persuit of truth. We introduce a bias, a pseudo- religious bias into our ongoing enquiry.
If is better to start from a position of uncertainty and work towards certainty than it is to go from certainty to uncertainty.

If you think that there are gaps in our understanding of the Theory of evolution, I wonder what you would said about it 150yrs ago .

triplechoice:
Atheism older than theory of evolution and the big bang?

No, that can't be true. Atheism is old as theism. They both feed from each other. One cannot exist without the other. Without theism, you won't know what it means to be an atheist and vice versa.

The talk that atheism is the default position is usually made by dogmatic atheist to postulate others from joining their them.

Atheism is not a philosophical proposition.

Secondly, to say that not all atheists SUBSCRIBE to TOE is laughable.
A scientific theory does not offer a SUBSCRIPTION service. It is not a membership service.

By the way, which scientific theories do you currently SUBSCRIBE to ?
The Gravitational Theory, The Germ Theory, The Atomic theory?
Do you think it's a pick and choose subscription service?
It is not.
These are deep and complex scientific ideas that the far majority of human population are hardly aware and have zero or very limited understanding.
Failing to understand something, a scientific theory, does not weaken the veracity of the theory itself.

triplechoice:
The theory has its limitations.

I dont know why it is so hard for them to admit.

And if the op is drawing attention to it, It's better you acknowledge that, and respond appropriately and not arrogantly dismissing him with God of the gaps accusation . I'm not a religious person myself but I find his question very valid. Any science that cannot be questioned is dogma, and anyone can question science.

Very well said.

plaetton:
Failing to understand something, a scientific theory, does not weaken the veracity of the theory itself.

Here you are implying that if one understands the Theory of Evolution properly, then it has no gaps.
This is very wrong - the theory is limited and has profound gaps - which even evolutionary biologists acknowledge.

Everyday247:
This doesn't invalidate what i was saying.

I was pointing out that TOE and BBT are not necessarily atheistic theories, because it looked like he was making the assumption that they were linked with atheism.

I never implied the bolded.

I think it's you that's assuming that, maybe from past experience with religious people who have tried to discredit TOE or dismiss it in place of creation science ideas

He's not doing that here or linking it with atheism, but asking for explanation for some parts of it which he refer to has inexplicable.

plaetton:
Atheism is not a philosophical proposition.

Secondly, to say that not all atheists SUBSCRIBE to TOE is laughable.
A scientific theory does not offer a SUBSCRIPTION service. It is not a membership service.

By the way, which scientific theories do you currently SUBSCRIBE to ?
The Gravitational Theory, The Germ Theory, The Atomic theory?
Do you think it's a pick and choose subscription service?
It is not.
These are deep and complex scientific ideas that the far majority of human population are hardly aware and have zero or very limited understanding.
Failing to understand something, a scientific theory, does not weaken the veracity of the theory itself.

What is the meaning of the word "subscribe"?

Do you think it has only one meaning?

I think that it's petty to point out grammatical errors when the meaning is clear.

triplechoice:
I think it's you that's assuming that, maybe from past experience with religious people who have tried to discredit TOE or dismiss it in place of creation science ideas

He's not doing that here or linking it with atheism, but asking for explanation for some parts of it which he refer to has inexplicable.

Check his posts, it was as if he was implying that some biological phenomena couldn't be explained by TOE, and was hinting at intelligent design.

Everyday247:
What is the meaning of the word "subscribe"?

Do you think it has only one meaning?

I think that it's petty to point out grammatical errors when the meaning is clear.

It was not petty.
You and I know exactly what was meant there.

plaetton:
It was not petty.
You and I know exactly what was meant there.

By saying "science is not a subscription service that people subscribe to".

This is not the meaning of subscribe as used in the statement. "Not all atheists subscribe to TOE".

DeepSight:
I dont know why it is so hard for them to admit.



Very well said.



Here you are implying that if one understands the Theory of Evolution properly, then it has no gaps.
This is very wrong - the theory is limited and has profound gaps - which even evolutionary biologists acknowledge.

It's like deja vu all over again.

I think you missed the part in a previous post where I said that TOE is not a complete package. It has never been. Most scientific Theories do not come as a complete package. What it does is set a starting point of our enquiries and understanding.

The truth remains that majority of people who say they reject TOE have either zero or very limited knowledge of its mechanics.
Funny,I confess that as a science student, as was once in that category. I rejected because I didn't want to accept it, not because I had scientifically valid counter Theory.

Everyday247:
By saying "science is not a subscription service that people subscribe to".

This is not the meaning of subscribe as used in the statement. "Not all atheists subscribe to TOE".

I also asked you if you ' subscribe ' to the Atomic theory or the Germ Theory or the Gravitational Theory.
Funny that no one tries to cast doubts on the Gravitational Theory, even though that particular theory is incomplete as well, with gapping holes.

plaetton:
Atheism is not a philosophical proposition.

Secondly, to say that not all atheists SUBSCRIBE to TOE is laughable.
A scientific theory does not offer a SUBSCRIPTION service. It is not a membership service.

By the way, which scientific theories do you currently SUBSCRIBE to ?
The Gravitational Theory, The Germ Theory, The Atomic theory?
Do you think it's a pick and choose subscription service?
It is not.
These are deep and complex scientific ideas that the far majority of human population are hardly aware and have zero or very limited understanding.
Failing to understand something, a scientific theory, does not weaken the veracity of the theory itself.

Honestly, it's like you don't take your time to read before replying.

Reread what you responded to and ask yourself if they align with what you just said now.

First of all, I never said," not all atheist subscribe to TOE.

Secondly, no where did I suggest atheism is a philosophical preposition. I said without theism there won't be atheism. If people don't talk of God, there won't be those to oppose the idea.

Finally, scientific theories isn't for picking and choosing, It should be questioned. That's what I said. Any science that cannot be questioned is not science but dogma.

DeepSight:
Beautiful and delightfully written. You took the red right out of my school of thought. It's exactly how I think, and it's heartwarming to read this from another.

@ LordReed, find this interesting? Re: other universes? Sound familiar?

@ AlbertNewton. I see what you did with your moniker. Einstein and Isaac.

I am all for wonder of how vast our universe and how mindbending our very existence is. What I am not for is attributing it to unseen entities.

plaetton:
Science, by it's very nature ,never assumes a position of all-knowing. Science, let me repeat, is an series of questions .
Do we know more about the universe that we did 50yrs ago. We certainly do.
Will we know more in the next 50yrs ? Certainly yes.
If we assume your type of fantasy, speculative fantasy, that there must be underlying intelligence beyond our material understanding of the universe, then we stray from our honest persuit of truth. We introduce a bias, a pseudo- religious bias into our ongoing enquiry.
If is better to start from a position of uncertainty and work towards certainty than it is to go from certainty to uncertainty.

If you think that there are gaps in our understanding of the Theory of evolution, I wonder what you would said about it 150yrs ago .

Well said bruv.

plaetton:
I also asked you if you ' subscribe ' to the Atomic theory or the Germ Theory or the Gravitational Theory.
Funny that no one tries to cast doubts on the Gravitational Theory, even though that particular theory is incomplete as well, with gapping holes.

While I subscribe to all these, many others, past and present do not subscribe to the theories mentioned.

Everyday247:
By saying "science is not a subscription service that people subscribe to".

This is not the meaning of subscribe as used in the statement. "Not all atheists subscribe to TOE".

Let me give an example.
There is so much we are still trying to understand about our Sun. But from what we know so far, all the planets in our solar system revolve around the Sun ,albeit, with different orbital periods. We also know that our Sun is the source, regulator and sustainer of life in our planet.
Now, if I make the proposition that the Sun is our Heavenly Father and therefore our God( having all the attributes of god).
You may say that you do not subscribe to that characterization of the Sun as our Heavenly father God. You would say for either if 2 reasons: 1. Either the characterization of the Sun as our heavenly father and God offends your religious sensibilities, or 2. You have not been acquainted with the mechanisms through which the Sun control all planets as well sustaining life on Earth.

The point here being that you can subscribe or subscribe to a philosophical proposition. But you are not at liberty to subscribe or unsubscribe to a scientific theory , unless, you can duly refute that theory or come up with a scientifically superior theory.
You refute science with better science, not with feelings .