Is Evolutionist Science worth believing?

[rodsky]

---

Now that's interesting! Our physical sciences has evolved much or I would say has roots from ancient philosophy as I study the works of the three great ancient Greek Philosophers (SPA)

No one denies that. It's simply saying that schools of thought do not and should not remain stagnant--they also transform from simple ideas to more complex ones. No one can deny that modern thought and current philosophy were indeed laid out during the classical Greek period, by great thinkers such as SPA. Similarly, Chemistry evolved from Alchemy, much as Astronomy evolved from Astrology. However, trying to "go back" and apply certain "classic" methods to the way we attempt to understand the universe is again pointing back to the analogy I mentioned earlier.

-RODION

[diehard96]

@regnauld:

(1) take note nga kun ang "epoche" ni Husserl applied ani, then even ang idea of "spirit" as opposed to "material" kinahanglang i-"bracket" out. you must be familiar with Husserl's phenomenology i suppose.

(2) how come nga wa man gi apil ang theodicy? presumed ba na naa gyu'y god? sa kang Husserl nga phenomenology dapat ma set aside ra ba ang presumptions.

"Let the thing be seen from itself just as it shows itself from itself."

Mao lang nay akong ma comment about Husserl kay di ra ba ko expert niya

@bigfoot oracle: ngano man intawng gi apil man ang :"piltdown man" diha? dugay na intawn nang nasakpan nga hoax. nagpaila lang gyud nga di na maoy view sa mga evolutionists.

basag DAWN OF MAN: THE STORY OF HUMAN EVOLUTION by Robin McKie (pages 54-55)

[regnauld]

No one denies that. It's simply saying that schools of thought do not and should not remain stagnant--they also transform from simple ideas to more complex ones. No one can deny that modern thought and current philosophy were indeed laid out during the classical Greek period, by great thinkers such as SPA. Similarly, Chemistry evolved from Alchemy, much as Astronomy evolved from Astrology. However, trying to "go back" and apply certain "classic" methods to the way we attempt to understand the universe is again pointing back to the analogy I mentioned earlier.

-RODION

I understand your point of view and with due respect sir to the 7 branches of philosophy, they made a great contribution to humanity. With these spiritual principles and disciplines, they were able to apply them for the betterment of society. Take for example the life of Gandhi, If Gandhi had not applied the spiritual principle of morality which is active non violence do you think he would have won the battle against the British govt? hardly. So, spiritual science is as effective as material science and even more effective and powerful perhaps.

[brownprose]

The hilarity of it all. Hahaha. Yeah, that's the funniest part.

Yeah, the infinity of creationist entertainment...something that we're truly thankful for.

Call me foolish and ignorant if you like. What makes sense to you may NOT make sense to me.

But of course, and the fun part of it all is when you reject something you know nothing about...makes sense to you indeed.

[diehard96]

No one denies that. It's simply saying that schools of thought do not and should not remain stagnant--they also transform from simple ideas to more complex ones. No one can deny that modern thought and current philosophy were indeed laid out during the classical Greek period, by great thinkers such as SPA. Similarly, Chemistry evolved from Alchemy, much as Astronomy evolved from Astrology. However, trying to "go back" and apply certain "classic" methods to the way we attempt to understand the universe is again pointing back to the analogy I mentioned earlier.

-RODION

very good point. mao nay naka kataw-anan sa uban. just because of people like pythagoras and other ancient greek thinkers abi nilag tanan na lang gyud nga ancient greek thought equally brilliant. in their historical context they were brilliant, but now more than 2k yrs later we have to think outside of their box.

[rodsky]

I understand your point of view and with due respect sir to the 7 branches of philosophy, they made a great contribution to humanity. With these spiritual principles and disciplines, they were able to apply them for the betterment of society. Take for example the life of Gandhi, If Gandhi had not applied the spiritual principle of morality which is active non violence do you think he would have won the battle against the British govt? hardly. So, spiritual science is as effective as material science and even more effective and powerful perhaps.

See? you used the term "spiritual principle", which is correct and acceptable. However, it would be wrong to say that Gandhi used "spiritual science" in his struggle. One can say that principles are a set of rules/instructions that one adheres to (and sometimes, blindly follow). Science, and specifically, the scientific method, on the other hand is not only a set of rules or instructions--it's a tool...a way, a method, a process of thinking and doing things, and in doing so, it aspires to eliminate conditions that would tend to "muddle" logic and reason.

Think about it for a moment--if Gandhi did indeed use "science" in his struggle, his methods wouldn't have worked--why? Well for one thing, he employed hunger strikes--totally illogical, because he himself knows that the body will deteriorate unless it is nourished, so how can he think and move around well, if his mind and body is not in a healthy state? So the reason Gandhi triumphed in his struggle, is not because he depended on science--it's because he depended on his personal beliefs and faith (i.e. passive resistance and nonviolence ), and once you get that into the picture, you can clearly see that there is no longer room for logic and reason, and this is why science cannot be "inserted" into the scene.

-RODION

[regnauld]

See? you used the term "spiritual principle", which is correct and acceptable. However, it would be wrong to say that Gandhi used "spiritual science" in his struggle. One can say that principles are a set of rules/instructions that one adheres to (and sometimes, blindly follow). Science, and specifically, the scientific method, on the other hand is not only a set of rules or instructions--it's a tool...a way, a method, a process of thinking and doing things, and in doing so, it aspires to eliminate conditions that would tend to "muddle" logic and reason.

-RODION

And logic itself which is defined as the science of correct thinking is one of the 7 branches of spiritual science! There is what we call Exoteric and Esoteric teachings. Material science is based on the the five senses and spiritual science doesn't only rely on his 5 senses but goes beyond like imagination and intuition. As what Einstein said, "IMAGINATION IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN KNOWLEDGE." I hope you consider my point of view!

[Bigfoot Oracle]

@ brownprose: Keep Calm and Carry On.


diehard96

nagpaila lang gyud nga di na maoy view sa mga evolutionists

Yay! At last natumbok na jud ang insaktong buot ipaibot.

Mao ra pud na sa tawn nga dili mao ang view sa Creationist.

Unsa may diperensya sa tao nga mo tuo ana og dili? Does it make a person smarter than the other? Logical or illogical, doesn't matter. Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with confidence.

point here is ( kung naa man galing). It's not what you believe in. It's what and who you are.


::

so yeah, let's feed the world of hunger starting with ourselves. manihapon sa ko

[rodsky]

And logic itself which is defined as the science of correct thinking is one of the 7 branches of spiritual science! There is what we call Exoteric and Esoteric teachings. Material science is based on the the five senses and spiritual science doesn't only rely on his 5 senses but goes beyond like imagination and intuition. As what Einstein said, "IMAGINATION IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN KNOWLEDGE." I hope you consider my point of view!

When Einstein actually said that, he was inferring more to inspiration and creativity rather than logic and reasoning. This was in direct response to a question earlier posed to him, about how ideas such as the Theory of Relativity came upon his mind. Thus, it's not an inference to science--it's actually a statement that hinges more on aesthetics. I don't deny it--aesthetics play an important role in our lifes, but to use things of an aesthetic nature, as a yardstick to gauge what we are able to understand and observe using the principles of the scientific method is not only wrong, the results would be downright funny. It's like saying "A red sunset is more truthful (and thus more beautiful) than a snowflake, because red is permanent, while a snowflake is not."

-RODION

[regnauld]

When Einstein actually said that, he was inferring more to inspiration and creativity rather than logic and reasoning. This was in direct response to a question earlier posed to him, about how ideas such as the Theory of Relativity came upon his mind. Thus, it's not an inference to science--it's actually a statement that hinges more on aesthetics. I don't deny it--aesthetics play an important role in our lifes, but to use things of an aesthetic nature, as a yardstick to gauge what we are able to understand and observe using the principles of the scientific method is not only wrong, the results would be downright funny. It's like saying "A red sunset is more truthful (and thus more beautiful) than a snowflake, because red is permanent, while a snowflake is not."

-RODION

"The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift." - Albert Einstein