/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.10279058]

I am a waning creationist who has a hard time accepting evolution. I see some of the evidence, but it is a reality that I desperately don’t want to believe. It would basically make my entire previous worldview a lie. How do I reconcile this, /sci/? How do you accept being the descendant of apes?

[Anonymous No.10279065]

What's so bad about being descended from apes?

[Anonymous No.10279072]

>>10279065
It would mean that humans are nothing more than animals.

[Anonymous No.10279078]

>>10279065
This.

>>10279072
Are you denying the existence of souls? Obviously the body is just a meat sack without it.

[Anonymous No.10279081]

>>10279078
There isn’t a “soul”. There is a brain which has ongoing computational processes within its neurons, which sends commands to the rest of the body and receives sensory information from it.

[Anonymous No.10279082]

>>10279072
Humans are nothing more than animals, and actually are apes. So what? You can also believe in the soul if you want, maybe you can think only humans have it then and that's nothing taken away from you or me, but these are just the facts.

[Anonymous No.10279087]

>>10279078
But why would God create people in a process as convoluted an unnecessary as evolution if he haad the ability to just speak things into existence? And when did God just decide that the ape was human enough to save?

[Anonymous No.10279086]

>>10279072
We’re more intelligent than the other ones, at least nominally, but I enjoy being related to them. They’re my friends.

[Anonymous No.10279092]

>>10279072
Humans are just animals and souls don't exist.

[Anonymous No.10279100]

>>10279087
>convoluted an unnecessary as evolution if he had the ability to just speak things into existence

Think for a second what "speak things into existence" would entail. You would have to micro-manage and specify everything no matter how arbitrary. Procedural generation is the efficient way of doing things.

>And when did God just decide that the ape was human enough to save?

When he hacked in consciousness.

[Anonymous No.10279102]

>>10279100
All animals with brains are conscious. God should have saved the placoderms

[Anonymous No.10279110]

>>10279087

How would something perfect be able to create something imperfect?

[Anonymous No.10279116]

>>10279110
“Perfection” doesn’t exist. It’s an incoherent idea.

[Anonymous No.10279117]

>>10279081
>There is a brain which has ongoing computational processes within its neurons,

And there are neurons outside of the brain that also perform computational processes. Why exclude the possibility of a a soul in addition to them?

[Anonymous No.10279121]

>>10279102
>God should have saved the placoderms

He wasn't performing his experiment with them.

[Anonymous No.10279122]

>>10279117
“Sire, I had no need of that hypothesis”

[Anonymous No.10279126]

>>10279110
How would someone who knows math be able to purposely write "2+2=5" (as a joke)?

[Anonymous No.10279129]

>>10279122
And I have no need for Art History. So what?

[Anonymous No.10279130]

>>10279126
So the defects of the human body that kill countless babies are a “joke”. Hmm.

[Anonymous No.10279132]

>>10279129
It is unnecessary to involve the supernatural concept of the immaterial soul in our current understanding of minds and neurology.

[Anonymous No.10279137]

>>10279058
>but it is a reality that I desperately don't want to believe
facts don't care about your feelings

[Anonymous No.10279139]

>>10279132
>in our current understanding of minds and neurology.

We don't know shit.

[Anonymous No.10279142]

>>10279139
We know quite a bit, actually. We can even watch memories form and thoughts go through the neural mass. It’s quite odd.

[neutermind !GxD0yjEx7M No.10279151]

presumably we'd evolve at a much faster rate in older times with more simple DNA, and genetics find it harder to achieve perfection to more that they complexify; where there is complexity tends to be also slower rate of evolution. I predict in natural circumstances (trees and shit), there would be a great peak and humans would shift in nature completely.

theoretically, a planet big bang happens as it flourishes; more natural gasses would fill the air.

[Anonymous No.10279159]

>>10279142
>thoughts go through the neural mass.

But we don't know how those thoughts are being processed. Otherwise ML/CV would be far easier as we could just throw resources into emulating it...

What we know is vague "cut out this part and he'll be crippled this way" factoids.

[Anonymous No.10279161]

>>10279058
>It would basically make my entire previous worldview a lie.
No it wouldn't. It just means you changed your mind. As long as you have a good reason to do so there's nothing to feel ashamed about.

[Anonymous No.10279167]

>>10279072
Indeed, but we are an especially intelligent animal with incredible power and possibilites. In the coming decades we could spark the process of the end of DNA-based life forms. It's a very interesting existence if you ask me.

[Anonymous No.10279169]

>>10279081
brainlet detected

[Anonymous No.10279191]

>>10279100
This is totally illogical, God is all powerful, he can do anything, he also knows anything, if he exists (I'm agnostic) then he would be a abstract idea, something that makes the motions of the universe go, the most efficient thing would be his brain and ideas moving at the speed of light - even faster if hes all powerful - and him constantly moving around things really quickly, but that would mean that there would be no free will.
Which of course is its own argument, but anyway tdlr if Gods all powerful then he wouldn't make a automated system but instead BE the system.

[Anonymous No.10279225]

>>10279191
>This is totally illogical
Why?
>God is all powerful, he can do anything, he also knows anything,
Yeah...
>then he would be a abstract idea, something that makes the motions of the universe go,
That's just pantheism.
>the most efficient thing would be his brain and ideas moving at the speed of light - even faster if hes all powerful - and him constantly moving around things really quickly, but that would mean that there would be no free will.
Are you high? That doesn't follow at all.
>Which of course is its own argument, but anyway tdlr if Gods all powerful then he wouldn't make a automated system but instead BE the system.
Why be the system when you can automate it? Making an automated script is far better than doing something over and over just cauze you can.

[Anonymous No.10279237]

>>10279169
Not an argument.

[Anonymous No.10279241]

>>10279191
“I’m agnostic”

You’re an agnostic atheist. You lack belief in God but do not know whether or not he exists.

[Anonymous No.10279242]

>>10279058
You have a hard time accepting evolution because you are too attached to your body. I am not my body. I am my soul, that that is within a body made up of cells, which along with all other cells on Earth, share a common ancestor. Before I was born, my soul had nothing to do with my body, and after I die, it will have nothing to do with my body.

[Anonymous No.10279269]

>>10279242
Provide empirical evidence that souls exist, please.

[Anonymous No.10279270]

>>10279116
>>10279126

Maybe my question didn't come through right. God is defined by Christianity as literal, untouchable, unknowable perfection. So how come can something perfect make something imperfect? Isn't that a paradox?

[Anonymous No.10279274]

>>10279269
>empirical evidence
I can't give you evidence based on experiments.

[Anonymous No.10279277]

>>10279270
God makes what he wants. Why should he be limited to making only perfect or imperfect things?

[Anonymous No.10279283]

>>10279072
We're better than all those other flesh sacks, so we're still special.
Other apes can't feel existential dread, so we've got that going for us.

[Anonymous No.10279292]

>>10279242
If two souls swapped bodies, would each body suddenly behave differently than if their souls were not swapped? If the answer is yes, then souls would have to be an empirical phenomenon; for, if souls were not physical, then there would have to be a violation of either causality or statistics. So you have only three options: souls are empirical, souls are emergent from and entirely defined by physical phenomena, or souls aren't real.

[Anonymous No.10279293]

>>10279072
wow, why do you hate animals so much?

[Anonymous No.10279326]

>>10279292
>If two souls swapped bodies, would each body suddenly behave differently than if their souls were not swapped?
Yes, the bodies will behave according to the wills of the people controlling them.
>If the answer is yes, then souls would have to be an empirical phenomenon; for, if souls were not physical, then there would have to be a violation of either causality or statistics
How would souls not being physical violate causality? Are you making the assumption that the non-physical influencing the physical is a violation of causality?

[Anonymous No.10279345]

>>10279241
>You’re an agnostic atheist

Stop trying to force this meme lelddit.

[Anonymous No.10279350]

>>10279270
>So how come can something perfect make something imperfect

Why would something perfect be unable to make things imperfect? It's not like imperfection can only come from failure.

[Anonymous No.10279368]

>>10279292
>empirical
That's not the right word dude. Souls are metaphysical by definition. They've been so since the Greeks.

Metaphysical and physical things can both be empirical or none empirical.

[Anonymous No.10279392]

>>10279345
Simply a fact, not a meme. Agnosticism is a knowledge claim. Fence sitting isn’t a real position.

[Anonymous No.10279397]

>>10279292
Souls obviously don’t exist, because our memories are literal physical things in the brain.

>>10279283
Did you ask them? No? Oh, then you don’t know.

[Anonymous No.10279411]

>>10279326
Souls not being physical means that they do not obey the laws of physics. Physics describes the relation between cause and effect. So, if a soul could influence physical phenomena then it would be theoretically possible to measure in someone's body a bunch of atoms doing things they're not supposed to do. For instance, the motion of an atom might bounce off of literally nothing. What caused this event? The cause of the event cannot be found from the typical relation between cause and effect, so causality is violated. The cause could only be found in the soul's own version of causality.

It now does seem evident to me that I'm just arguing in circles, though. I don't personally believe that there can be contradictory sets of laws of physics affecting reality, and that's what I'm basing my argument on. If you disagree on that point, then I guess substance dualism is fine.

[Anonymous No.10279415]

>>10279411
Why overthink nonsense? We might as well be arguing about Sagan’s dragon.

[Anonymous No.10279427]

>>10279392
>Fence sitting isn’t a real position.

Hello antifa, fuck off back to >>>/tumblr/

[Anonymous No.10279429]

>>10279397
>because our memories are literal physical things in the brain
1) Prove it.
2) Prove there aren't backups.

[Anonymous No.10279433]

>>10279429
>Being this behind

https://qbi.uq.edu.au/brain-basics/memory/how-are-memories-formed

>2) Prove there aren't backups.

Brain damage destroys memories and can inhibit the ability to form new ones.

[Anonymous No.10279455]

>>10279411
>So, if a soul could influence physical phenomena then it would be theoretically possible to measure in someone's body a bunch of atoms doing things they're not supposed to do.
The cause of that event was the soul.
>The cause of the event cannot be found from the typical relation between cause and effect, so causality is violated.
Can you elavorate what you mean by "typical relation"? How would that violate causality?

[Anonymous No.10279464]

>>10279072
Yeah
I distract myself with violence

[Anonymous No.10279480]

>>10279433
>Brain damage destroys memories and can inhibit the ability to form new ones.
Hard drive damage destroys files and can inhibit the ability to write new ones. Doesn't debunk backups.

[Anonymous No.10279494]

>>10279326
>Yes, the bodies will behave according to the wills of the people controlling them.
If souls determine how people act, why can brain injury or psychoactive chemicals change how they act?

[Anonymous No.10279498]

>>10279058

>How do you accept being the descendant of apes?

We aren't descendants of apes. We are apes.

[neutermind No.10279499]

is there someone like neo?

[neutermind No.10279503]

GET HIM
the true seer, bringer of our pain

[Anonymous No.10279516]

>>10279480
You’re the one that brought up “backups”. Prove they exist, since it’s your claim. I’ll wait.

Where is the backup? By what causal mechanism does it interact with the brain? Please present empirical evidence of magical “memory backups”.

[Anonymous No.10279521]

>>10279455
>The cause of that event was the soul.

Prove those events occur.

[Anonymous No.10279533]

>>10279516
>Prove they exist, since it’s your claim.
No, you're the one that claims they don't exist. I'm merely posing the possibility.

[Anonymous No.10279540]

>>10279058
I'm a devout Catholic, but how does evolution disprove God?

[Anonymous No.10279545]

>>10279540
It doesn't. This is brainlet proddie nonsense.

I say this as an atheist.

[Anonymous No.10279576]

>>10279540
Doesn’t disprove god in general, but in terms of the Christian God, you have to do a lot pf mental gymnastics to make the Bible and evolution fit.

[Anonymous No.10279583]

>>10279058
Just believe what makes you happy and try not to harm others.

[neutermind No.10279605]

>>10279576
there is the rational thought that something like God MIGHT have been, but no rational thought that God did.

It's better thought 'designer', because God names it on a personal level that you don't really know well enough.

God is attributed to the bible, no matter what you say, belief in God means affiliated with the bible God.

If you take God from the bible and say it's a dictionary definition, they you enforce a stupid word reality because no God word is sensible. Unless people want to subtract God from the bible, I disagree with it. It should just mean, designer of universe, not speicifically, this designer.

[Anonymous No.10279612]

>>10279159
>god of the gaps
"We don't know" never follows logically to "it's God!"
Why do magical thinkers keep making this mistake? One theory having games in evidence does not count as evidence for a completely different, unrelated theory.

[Anonymous No.10279618]

>>10279540
A lot of christian denominations still haven't backtracked/moved the goalposts on divine creationism. Unfortunately not everybody is keeping as up to date on retroactively changing what their religion is when they're at risk of being obviously wrong about something.

[neutermind No.10279622]

>>10279612
you can't say belief in a designer is stupid; if you had bubble next to you and you were to fill it with theories of what happened before the big bang - as you do not know what happened then, and designer can fit, it's a possibility. You should NEVER however, claim you know it's a designer without proof, it would just be one of the possibilities.

This is more intelligent than Atheism.

Don't be side B who says no to the question, be excluded competely, disagree with the question; don't understand what God means!

[Anonymous No.10279630]

>>10279540
It doesn't prove atheism, but it does require humans to not be special in any way other than evolving first, which destroys a lot of scripture for many religions and raises too many questions (e.g. "Do non-humans have souls?").

[Anonymous No.10279633]

>>10279540
It doesn't

[Anonymous No.10279634]

>>10279622
What a non-sequitur post. All I said is that if you have two unrelated theories, finding a flaw in one does not validate the other. I never said belief in a creator is stupid. I will, however, say that trying to validate a claim by invalidating somebody elses claim doesn't work and I see religious and spiritual people do it constantly.

[Anonymous No.10279636]

>>10279058

>How do you accept being the descendant of apes?

Isn't the theory that both Humans and apes share a common ancestor? We're not directly descendant from them.

[Anonymous No.10279637]

>>10279225
You, I like you.

[Anonymous No.10279639]

>>10279392
It is wise to accept your own ignorance rather than take sides on an argument you don't understand

[Anonymous No.10279643]

>>10279058
>It would basically make my entire previous worldview a lie.
Your entire previous worldview IS a lie, and you know it. Why would you try to reconcile it with anything?

[Anonymous No.10279653]

We're not descendents of apes. We're desendents of Big Chungus

[Anonymous No.10279662]

>>10279540
For us Catholics it doesn't really disprove anything, it is mostly a problem for other christian denominations without developed theology that assume everything in the Bible is supposed to be interpreted literally at all times. Hence creationism which is not really a thing either for us.

[Anonymous No.10279672]

>>10279643
So that he can see the light and turn back to his Catholic brethren, we also got cookies and can drink wine

[neutermind No.10279676]

>>10279634

[Anonymous No.10279769]

>>10279533
>No, you're the one that claims they don't exist. I'm merely posing the possibility.

Nope. Never did that. You just lied.

[Anonymous No.10279774]

>>10279636
Yes we are. Humans share a common ancestor with chimps, but both are apes,

[Anonymous No.10279777]

>>10279639
Yes, so stop talking.

[Anonymous No.10279781]

>>10279777
I'm not even the same person you were discussing with you buffoon, I'm just pointing out the obvious answer to an stupid question.

[Anonymous No.10279805]

>>10279058
>descendant of apes
It's pretty easy when you understand that you yourself are in fact an ape.

[Anonymous No.10279872]

>>10279540
It doesn't, at best(and most relevant to your religion) it would prove that the Bible isn't inerrant. Many Christians(Catholic or otherwise) have adapted to this by claiming the creation accounts aren't meant to be literal, or that God explained things in a way the writers of the Bible would understand, etc. But you can still be Catholic and accept that evolution is a process that happened and is happening currently.

[Anonymous No.10279923]

>>10279872
At least he isn't one of those retarded young earth creationists. I've gone to their church services and they pray that people who accept evolution will "be led home".

[Anonymous No.10279951]

>>10279633

Truly the McDonalds of religion.

[Anonymous No.10279987]

>>10279872
Yes, shove your God into a tighter and tighter pocket of irrelevance.

[Anonymous No.10280020]

man, /sci/ really is the most reddit board

[Anonymous No.10280055]

>>10279058
>How do you accept being the descendant of apes?
Humans didnt start from much, we were some of the weakest chimps in the trees.
And we were so weak that the other chimps forced us onto the ground.
But we didnt die.
We gathered together, we planned ahead, we made tools
and in 10,000 years we went from mud huts all the way to the moon.
We have no reason to be ashamed of our ancestors.

[Anonymous No.10280087]

>>10279987
Only if you're a brainlet incapable of processing abstract concepts more difficult than shitposting on 4chan my dear autismo

[Anonymous No.10280092]

>>10280087
Humans are capable enough of understanding abstract concepts that we can conclude God is not real.

[Anonymous No.10280119]

>>10280092
>Concluding without any feedback to back it up
Please leave your personal beliefs at the door when trying to argue actual science kid

[Anonymous No.10280131]

>>10280119
>Please leave your personal beliefs at the door when trying to argue actual science kid

Agreed, so admit God is not real and move on.

[Anonymous No.10280143]

>>10279769
>Nope. Never did that. You just lied.
see:
>>10279397
>Souls obviously don’t exist, because our memories are literal physical things in the brain.
>>10279433
>Brain damage destroys memories and can inhibit the ability to form new ones.

>>10279516
>Where is the backup?
Outside the universe.
>By what causal mechanism does it interact with the brain?
It's reads the data directly from outside the universe. You don't need to do anything inside the universe.
>Please present empirical evidence of magical “memory backups”.
The same way emulators can save state outside of any mechanism in the game code.

[Anonymous No.10280149]

>>10279576
>you have to do a lot pf mental gymnastics to make the Bible and evolution fit.

Not really.

[Anonymous No.10280151]

>>10280143
>outside the universe
Do you even know what "universe" means?

[Anonymous No.10280156]

>>10280143
>The same way emulators can save state outside of any mechanism in the game code.

That’s not empirical evidence, you dumb faggot, it’s a supposed mechanism for your unproven phenomena.

>It's reads the data directly from outside the universe. You don't need to do anything inside the universe.

Prove it.

[Anonymous No.10280161]

>>10280151
Was gonna say how “outside” is a term of spatial reference but it’d probably be lost on them.

>>10280149
Yes, you do. It’s a big leap between a magic man breathing on some mud to gradual speciation.

[Anonymous No.10280185]

>>10280131
>"Admit I'm right cause I want to be right"
Not very scientific out of you anon, more like childlike behavior

[Anonymous No.10280196]

>>10280185
>Not very scientific out of you anon, more like childlike behavior

Agreed, it is not scientific to believe in unfalsifiable spooks, so move on.

[Anonymous No.10280212]

>>10279058
Creationism is stupid.
Shoehorning God into a religion is even dumber.
God is a logical deduction, any truly intelligent person would have deduced God is real when they were a teenager. If you EVER went through an edgy teenage atheist phase, you're not intelligent. If you're religious beyond the age of 22, you're not intelligent.
Evolution is real, and is happening now, and is the reason modern humans exist in the way we do.
That's the end of this conversation, any other post that does not agree with this is false and can be disregarded immediately.

[Anonymous No.10280227]

>>10280196
>No u
Oh sorry man, thought I was discussing with somebody smart and not with a literal child, have a good day

[Anonymous No.10280234]

>>10280227
>Oh sorry man, thought I was discussing with somebody smart and not with a literal child, have a good day

I know. Only a child could believe in invisible beings that perform miracles. Goodbye!

[Anonymous No.10280241]

>>10280212
>God is a logical deduction, any truly intelligent person would have deduced God is real when they were a teenager.

Gonna need to see the work behind that one.

>That's the end of this conversation, any other post that does not agree with this is false and can be disregarded immediately.

Is this, like....a meme?

[Anonymous No.10280246]

>>10280241
>Gonna need to see the work behind that one.
You clearly arent intelligent enough to understand it or you would have deduced it yourself between the age of 15-25.

[Anonymous No.10280253]

>>10280246
>You clearly arent intelligent enough to understand it or you would have deduced it yourself between the age of 15-25.


Yep. Meme.

[Anonymous No.10280256]

>>10280253
Yep. You're a midwit pretending to be smarter than he is. Oh well.

[Anonymous No.10280273]

>>10280256
Nope, I’m a genius posthuman God, and you are a Jewish orangutan.
That's the end of this conversation, any other post that does not agree with this is false and can be disregarded immediately.

[Anonymous No.10280278]

>>10280273
seething

[Anonymous No.10280280]

>>10280278
>That's the end of this conversation, any other post that does not agree with this is false and can be disregarded immediately.

Nice try, though, but I don’t think you read that! If you don’t agree, you’re simply wrong. Says it right there.

[Anonymous No.10280292]

>>10280280
"seething" isn't a disagreement. It's a statement of your emotions.
This just further shows you are just a midwit pretending to be smarter than he is. Which of course, I knew all along, from you posts ITT.

[Anonymous No.10280295]

>>10280292
Nah, your claims are false and are disregarded, because I say so. Nice try though!

[Anonymous No.10280310]

>>10280295
seething

[Anonymous No.10280314]

>>10280310
Seething.

[Anonymous No.10280408]

>>10279072
'Nothing more' he says. As opposed to the literally nothing of some undefined shit that affirms your specialness in a shallow manner without offering any substance, muh god muh soul -- these things ARE meaningless because there's no content to them, nothing that actually affects, exists, and has form. Being an animal means we're actually something, something we can explore and consider.

Btw we aren't descended from apes, we are apes.

[El Arcón No.10280468]

>>10279058
did they delete my evolution paper in the other thread?

[El Arcón No.10280474]

>>10280468

[El Arcón No.10280477]

>>10280468
>>10280474

[Anonymous No.10280488]

>>10280234
Indeed, only a child like you would be unable to understand the concept of god as something more complex than "big wizard in the sky", but don't worry kid, you did well in your fedora class and you are getting a nap in the good boys corner as result, bye

[El Arcón No.10280489]

[Anonymous No.10280536]

>>10279058
here's the real redpill
religion is nothing but a societal tool to keep people functioning together. it has a great deal of merit, but logically the standard scientific worldview makes more sense. that being said, religion is a system which works very well on a societal scale, so even if you discard your belief in God for a more "scientific" one, religious morals are still very good to keep. i've done a huge amount of philosophizing and consulting on this subject, so if you have any sort of questions about (mostly christian) religions, hmu and I'll hopefully have answers.

[Anonymous No.10280553]

>>10280314
>no u!

[Anonymous No.10280610]

>>10279087
Ya but humans have the ability to speak god into existence. Think about all the numerous gods that "exist." And part of the core of their existence is faith, it can't be proven, it can only be believed.

Religions are cults that attempt to sell you the problem (eternal damnation) and the solution (eternal salvation) and do so entirely on word-of-mouth.

Feel free to believe what you want to believe when there is no evidence, but be careful when you reject evidence just because you don't want to believe. Such baseless rejection is entirely irrational.

[Anonymous No.10280635]

>>10280553
No u

>>10280488
It is nothing more complex than that. You aggrandize the childish concepts of our ancestors.

[Anonymous No.10280638]

>>10280468
What journal peer-reviewed your “paper”?

[Anonymous No.10280639]

>>10279072
Humans are nothing more than molecules get over it.

[Anonymous No.10280641]

>>10280635
>No u
absolutely pathetic.
Midwits are even more disgusting than brainlets.

[Anonymous No.10280642]

>>10280639
Molecules are nothing more than fermions!

[Anonymous No.10280644]

>>10280641
No u

I’m not sure why you expect anyone to take you seriously when you post obvious meme bait like “anyone that disagrees is wrong”.

Seething.

[Anonymous No.10280646]

>>10280644
When a person posts a proven proposition, it doesn't stop being true just because midwits can't understand it
But of course, a midwit like you wouldn't be capable of understanding that either.
I bet you're the type to think physics is more fundamental than mathematics as well lmao

[Anonymous No.10280653]

>>10280646
>Lol u r just too dumb to understand this logical formula that I refuse to show anyone

Meme shit.

[Anonymous No.10280658]

>>10280653
I didn't write it. If you actually knew anything about higher mathematics, logic, computation, you would know what I'm talking about already. Yet you don't, which just shows you are just another midwit fedora loser pretending to be smarter than he is, hiding behind "science" and "atheism" as a pseudo-intellectual cloak of mediocrity.

[Anonymous No.10280668]

>>10279087
>he still thinks of God as a person

[Anonymous No.10280670]

>>10280658
>I didn't write it. If you actually knew anything about higher mathematics, logic, computation, you would know what I'm talking about already.

Enlighten me, then. Name what you’re talking about.
You won’t, because you’re just trolling.

Meme shit yet again

[Anonymous No.10280676]

>>10279081
Plebbit detected

[Anonymous No.10280679]

>>10280676
Plebbit detected.

[Anonymous No.10280706]

>>10280679
Sorry for forgetting the period.

[Anonymous No.10280709]

>>10280706
Whatever you say Plebbit.

[Anonymous No.10280743]

It doesn't really affect me. Whether or not we are descended from apes doesn't affect humanity, or our achievements.

[Anonymous No.10280749]

>>10280709
Just admit your trolling attempt failed and move on. Stop trying to force a dead horse.

[Anonymous No.10280752]

>>10280161
>It’s a big leap between a magic man breathing on some mud

That's a story from the Quran, Ackmed.

[Anonymous No.10280754]

>>10280749
Just admit your trolling attempt failed and move on. Stop trying to force a dead horse.

[Anonymous No.10280758]

>>10280151
>has never heard of the multiverse

[Anonymous No.10280760]

>>10280752
“And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul”

No,that’s from the Bible.

[Anonymous No.10280762]

>>10280156
>things are proven wrong until proven right
What's with the feminist mindset?

[Anonymous No.10280772]

>>10280762
>>things are proven wrong until proven right

No, a claim is baseless until proven right or refuted. I don’t believe in baseless things.

>What's with the feminist mindset?

The advocacy of women’s rights based on the equality of the sexes has no relevance to epistemology.

[Anonymous No.10280778]

>>10280760
>There is a play on words in Hebrew between ’adam (“human being,” “man”) and ’adama (“ground”).

Do you even symbolism?

[Anonymous No.10280782]

>>10280772
>The advocacy of women’s rights based on the equality of the sexes has no relevance to epistemology.

You've outed yourself.

[Anonymous No.10280784]

>>10280772
>No, a claim is baseless until proven right or refuted. I don’t believe in baseless things.

Possibilities are just possibilities. Your rejection of them is baseless. Do you know what the theoretical even is?

[Anonymous No.10280786]

>>10280778
I don’t know Hebrew, so whatever puns ancient Jews were making is lost on me.

[Anonymous No.10280790]

>>10280782
As.....? I gave you a google definition. Nice non-argument.

>>10280784
Nope. All baseless claims are subject to rejection.

[Anonymous No.10280810]

>>10280790
>Nope. All baseless claims are subject to rejection.

[Anonymous No.10280813]

>>10280810
I am God.

[Anonymous No.10280844]

>>10280772
>No, a claim is baseless until proven right or refuted. I don’t believe in baseless things

So you don’t believe, i.e. reject, things that haven't been refuted. Therefore you reject them ... baselessly since there isn't a refute to base rejection on. How is that not "things are proven wrong until proven right" brainletism?

[Anonymous No.10280850]

>>10280844
No, a rejection of a claim is not a claim that it is false. Any baseless claim should be rejected, since they are baseless.
Why are you trolling?

[Anonymous No.10280858]

>>10279072
Humans are nothing more than animals.
Animals nothing more than tissue.
Tissue no more than cells.
Cells nothing but atoms.
But atoms?
Atoms are the universe.
So all is one and one is all.

[Anonymous No.10280865]

>>10280850
>a rejection of a claim is not a claim that it is false

What is a rejection of a claim if not a claim that it is false?

>Any baseless claim should be rejected, since they are baseless

Then science is dead since everything is baseless until shown otherwise.

>Why are you trolling?

I'm not trolling, you're making contradictory statements.

[Anonymous No.10280880]

>>10280865
>What is a rejection of a claim if not a claim that it is false?

A rejection.

>Then science is dead since everything is baseless until shown otherwise

That’s.......why science tests hypothesis and theories. What are you on about?

>I'm not trolling, you're making contradictory statements.

Yes you are. You’ve cooked up some cloud cuckoolander epistemology and are presenting it like it’s normal. It’s amazing.

[Anonymous No.10280906]

>>10280880
>A rejection.
>: to refuse to accept, consider
>b : to refuse to hear, receive, or admit

So you're saying you utterly refuse to consider the possibility. But if you refuse to consider things, you close off the avenues that might show that it's correct.

Why can't you be open minded?

[Anonymous No.10280913]

>>10280906
re·jec·tion
/rəˈjekSH(ə)n/Submit
noun
noun: rejection; plural noun: rejections
the dismissing or refusing of a proposal, idea, etc.
"the Union decided last night to recommend rejection of the offer"
synonyms: refusal, nonacceptance, declining, turning down, no, dismissal, spurning, rebuff; More
informalknock-back
"the chairman is expected to issue a rejection of the offer"
repudiation, rebuff, spurning, abandonment, forsaking, desertion, shutting out, exclusion, shunning, cold-shouldering, ostracizing, ostracism, blackballing, blacklisting, avoidance, ignoring, snubbing, snub, cutting dead;
sending to Coventry;
informalbrush-off, a kick in the teeth;
excommunication
"it took a long while before he got over Madeleine's rejection of him"
antonyms: acceptance, welcome
the spurning of a person's affections.
"some people are reluctant to try it, because they fear rejection"

That definition cherry pick.

Have you never heard the term “burden of proof” in your life?

[Anonymous No.10280916]

>>10280906
I’ll play patty cake with the troll some other time. You’ve demonstrated your ignorance or dishonesty by having no knowledge of what burden of proof is. Bye.

[Anonymous No.10280917]

>>10280880
>That’s.......why science tests hypothesis and theories
Because science doesn't reject things until they are fully investigated. What is a hypothesis if not a baseless claim made from speculation?

[Anonymous No.10280923]

>>10280913
>That definition cherry pick.

So what which are you using exactly?

>Have you never heard the term “burden of proof” in your life?

The “burden of proof” applies to "no" as well as to "yes".

[Anonymous No.10280931]

>>10280913
>That definition cherry pick.

So which one are you using exactly?

>Have you never heard the term “burden of proof” in your life?

The “burden of proof” applies to "no" as well as to "yes". Defaulting to "no" is no smarter than a gullible idiot defaulting to "yes".

[Anonymous No.10281115]

>>10280310
>>10280314
>the absolute state of /sci/

[Anonymous No.10281157]

>>10280212
I came to the conclusion that it makes more sense that a formless universe came from nothing, than that an intelligent all powerful being came from nothing and then made a universe

[Anonymous No.10281298]

>>10279633
>evolution doesn't answer every query
>therefore god
Lmao literally god of the gaps

[Anonymous No.10281314]

>>10279058
>How do you accept being the descendant of apes?
I don't. There's proof that we evolved and have similar genetics to some apes but not proof we ever were apes.

[Anonymous No.10281831]

>>10279058
>the descendant of apes
"People are bloody ignorant apes."
— Samuel Beckett, "Waiting for Godot"

[Anonymous No.10281835]

>>10281298
More like science doesn't apply to everything.

[Anonymous No.10281926]

>>10280670
You're just proving him right.

[Anonymous No.10281987]

>>10279072
We are animals. We have the same thoughts, desires, and needs as other lifeforms, we just throw a bunch of bullshit behind it to justify it to ourselves and others.

[Anonymous No.10282020]

>>10281314
What do you mean?
Other people in the thread said that we are apes