lichess.org
Donate

WHY does anything exist

#71
@Thalassokrator said in #67:
> Well, if it's a good science book everything contained in it should be factual, i.e. there should at least be some evidence for it. Again, I doubt that your textbook says humans are monkeys, because we humans don't have a tail, do we?

No, it says that humans evolved from monkeys. They first were monkeys "supposedly", then evolved.

> Well, yes. Scientists spend in some cases their entire lives studying nature. Even religious scientists do. Why? Because it is fun. Because it is very useful. Because science improves the human condition (technological off-spins like computers, bluetooth, fuel-efficient airplanes, spaceflight, satellites, GPS), alleviates suffering (medical science alone, much of which is based on other natural sciences like physics [MRI, PET-scan, X-ray, ultrasound], bio-chemistry [pharmacology, anaesthesiology], robotics [prosthetics]).

Well, I don't like math. Can't follow the science career.

> (extremely long history lesson)

Wow. Nice lesson.


> (another millenia later of storytelling)

You do know a lot, don't you?

> What makes you say that? There are excellent scientists in the present day. In the last few years alone scientists have (in no particular order)
> I could go on an on. What's your quarrel with today's scientists?

Someone predicted that some scientists are going to do something evil in the future D:
This year. Can't say more for x reasons

> Wishing someone a good day is part of basic human decency, so have a good one!
Cool.
#72
@FSAA_p6b said in #71:
> No, it says that humans evolved from monkeys. They first were monkeys "supposedly", then evolved.

No, that's utterly wrong. At this point I have to assume your misunderstanding to be deliberate. I've explained this several times already. Humans didn't evolve from monkeys (and no science textbook would say so). Monkeys are alive today. So they can't be ancestors to humans, can they? Or would you believe someone that's the same age as you if they told you they were your father? You wouldn't, because fathers are strictly older than their children.

In the same way modern humans cannot have evolved from modern monkeys. Duh ...
And it's not what biology says at all.

You're deliberately (you know full well what it actually says) misrepresenting what biology says in order make it seem ridiculous.
Presumably to sway people who don't know what biology has to say about that topic. I'd maybe call that kind of behaviour insidious, but who am I to judge?
Remind me: What did the Bible say about honesty again?

> Well, I don't like math. Can't follow the science career.

Is this some lame attempt at satire?
In case you're being serious, there are plenty of scientific fields that don't require (much) mathematics (parts of biology among them). Understanding the scientific method doesn't require any mathematics. Or did you see a single formula in my post #67 in which I explained the scientific method to you?

> Wow. Nice lesson.
>
> You do know a lot, don't you?

No, I don't actually.
But congrats, you've learned to make snarky, sarcastic remarks! Instead of actually reading and addressing what I wrote. I'll let you decide whether or not that's a sad state of affairs.

> Someone predicted that some scientists are going to do something evil in the future D:
> This year. Can't say more for x reasons

That's the vaguest, most ludicrous prediction I've ever heard. "Some friend's neighbour told them their child's school's janitor's cat told them that sometime in the future something bad will happen. Can't say more though because the thought police will snatch me if I do". Sure thing.

Nice evasive manoeuvre. That way you didn't have to actually address anything of what I've written about the accomplishments of modern science. You know I didn't make this stuff up, so you had no good counterargument other than to ... make random stuff up.

I hope this conversation was fun for you! :-) Have a nice day!
#74
@Bill_Likes_Chess said in #73:
> Thalassokrator Bro science doesn't exist? Didn't you get the latest news from my second cousin's drug dealer?

O, woe is me! I should have foreseen this! If Chef says so, it must be true!
#75
@Thalassokrator said in #72:
> No, that's utterly wrong. At this point I have to assume your misunderstanding to be deliberate. I've explained this several times already. Humans didn't evolve from monkeys (and no science textbook would say so). Monkeys are alive today. So they can't be ancestors to humans, can they? Or would you believe someone that's the same age as you if they told you they were your father? You wouldn't, because fathers are strictly older than their children.

Ok, let's make it clear. I don't trust that dumb idea of monkeys. But just because they added it to the book, our teacher wants us to study about it, whether we want it or not. But she speaks so well about the topic that it kinda looks like SHE does trust that Charles Theory. Not me.

(more story)

> Remind me: What did the Bible say about honesty again?

To never tell lies. I don't even like white lies.

> Is this some lame attempt at satire?

No, hold it! I did not want to say math. I meant conceptual physics. Sorry 'bout that misunderstanding.

> That's the vaguest, most ludicrous prediction I've ever heard.
No, there's a catch. Someone who has a direct line to God or something (i'm not sure what was it) predicted another virus. I can't say more because it's said certain scientists are going to unfreeze it or something for money. Can't say more again.

> I hope this conversation was fun for you! :-) Have a nice day!
You too!
#77
@FSAA_p6b said in #75:
> Ok, let's make it clear. I don't trust that dumb idea of monkeys. But just because they added it to the book, our teacher wants us to study about it, whether we want it or not.

You insist on using the word monkey. I'll not repeat why this is incorrect, you can reread my previous posts.
Well, you're in school to learn something. What's your problem with learning something new? You also have to study a bit of maths and some languages and history whether you want to or not. It's part of a complete education. And as I've laid out in #67, learning about science (or the scientific method per se) is actually useful and beneficial to both the individual and to society.

> But she speaks so well about the topic that it kinda looks like SHE does trust that Charles Theory. Not me.

Not sure why a social studies teacher is teaching you biology (a biology teacher should teach you biology), but good for her if she's aware of the current best model of the diversification of life-forms on this planet, namely evolution by natural selection. That's state of the art biology.

> (more story)

I'm not telling you a bedtime story. I'm putting forth arguments. Which you then refuse to address.

> To never tell lies. I don't even like white lies.

Why then do you insist on using the incorrect word "monkey" when characterising what evolutionary biology is saying? It's hard to believe that you could have misunderstood, I've told you numerous times by now. Naturally I have to assume that you're being dishonest, i.e. that you insist on intentionally constructing a straw man argument.
Deliberately lying about what biology is actually saying.

> No, hold it! I did not want to say math. I meant conceptual physics. Sorry 'bout that misunderstanding.

I have no clue what "conceptual physic" is supposed to be. Either way, I presume it's not a necessary prerequisite for all fields of science.

> No, there's a catch. Someone who has a direct line to God or something (i'm not sure what was it) predicted another virus. I can't say more because it's said certain scientists are going to unfreeze it or something for money. Can't say more again.

There's no catch.

I wouldn't give much credence to specific apocalyptic predictions of people who claim to have "a direct line to God". Time and time again such predictions have utterly failed.
You needn't worry. Of course you want me to present observational evidence for this claim, don't you? Here you go:

We make the following two observations:
1) The apocalypse has not yet happened (otherwise we wouldn't be here).
2) There have been a myriad of dates predicted for apocalyptic events in the past. Here's a list of some of the most prominent ones:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dates_predicted_for_apocalyptic_events#20th_century

None of them have come to fruition. Not a single one. In the 20th century alone there have been at the very least 75 such predictions. That's 3 predictions of the apocalypse for every 4 years in that century alone.

Why should the vague "prediction" you've cited be any different? In what way does it differ from the hundreds of failed predictions before it?

> You too!

Thanks!
#78
@Thalassokrator said in #77:
> You insist on using the word monkey. I'll not repeat why this is incorrect, you can reread my previous posts.
> Well, you're in school to learn something. What's your problem with learning something new? You also have to study a bit of maths and some languages and history whether you want to or not. It's part of a complete education. And as I've laid out in #67, learning about science (or the scientific method per se) is actually useful and beneficial to both the individual and to society.

There's no problem with learning, it's just that I don't like learning false information.

> Not sure why a social studies teacher is teaching you biology (a biology teacher should teach you biology), but good for her if she's aware of the current best model of the diversification of life-forms on this planet, namely evolution by natural selection. That's state of the art biology.

I'm in elementary school, so social studies sometimes mixes with biology. Biology as a 100% class unattached from another subject does not exist yet for me.

> I'm not telling you a bedtime story. I'm putting forth arguments. Which you then refuse to address.

I know, I know, but-

> Why then do you insist on using the incorrect word "monkey" when characterising what evolutionary biology is saying? It's hard to believe that you could have misunderstood, I've told you numerous times by now.

No, I know it's not monkey. I use monkey because it is easier and faster to say than "humanoid monkey" or "semi-human monkey" or whatever applies.

> I have no clue what "conceptual physic" is supposed to be. Either way, I presume it's not a necessary prerequisite for all fields of science.

Of course it is not necessary for all fields, but it's really important at math and certain science fields. Like, Newton's gravity discovery.

> There's no catch.

Well, i'm n o t sure if that prediction is gonna be real. But if it happens, please remember what I said
And let's ignore this part and act like if it was baseball, so we can be ok.

> Thanks!

You're welcome.
#79
@FSAA_p6b said in #78:
> There's no problem with learning, it's just that I don't like learning false information.

Great! Then there's no problem. Generally schools teach correct information (for the most part). If you're implying that evolutionary biology is incorrect, then I would kindly ask you to wait until you learn about it properly. It's not incorrect in any sense of the word, it's the best known theory on the diversification of life on earth (like the Big Bang, evolution makes no claim about the origin of life, it just describes how the many life-forms we see today have emerged over time), supported by tons upon tons of evidence.

> I'm in elementary school, so social studies sometimes mixes with biology. Biology as a 100% class unattached from another subject does not exist yet for me.

Then maybe suspend judgement until you actually get to learn it properly? Wait until you actually learn about evolution in biology class. Don't let prejudice influence you.

By the way, your grammar, vocabulary and spelling is unusually well developed for a self-proclaimed elementary school student. A bit strange ...

> No, I know it's not monkey. I use monkey because it is easier and faster to say than "humanoid monkey" or "semi-human monkey" or whatever applies.

Is it easier to say than the word "(great) ape" though? Because this would be the correct word. The great apes are: chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans and ... humans:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hominidae

All of them are intelligent, social creatures. All of them can make their own tools and use them. All of them can communicate with the members of their own species, can teach their young new skills, etc.
One of them is the most intelligent life-form on planet earth (as far as we know): The human.

> Of course it is not necessary for all fields, but it's really important at math and certain science fields. Like, Newton's gravity discovery.

True, a lot of science uses maths. That's because a lot of science seeks to describe nature quantitatively (how much, how high, how many? and similar questions).

> Well, i'm n o t sure if that prediction is gonna be real. But if it happens, please remember what I said
> And let's ignore this part and act like if it was baseball, so we can be ok.

Glad to hear you're not sure. I hope you'll forgive that I won't be holding my breath. I see no reason to be worried by unsubstantiated apocalyptic "predictions".
#80
@Thalassokrator said in #79:
> Great! Then there's no problem. Generally schools teach correct information (for the most part). If you're implying that evolutionary biology is incorrect, then I would kindly ask you to wait until you learn about it properly. It's not incorrect in any sense of the word, it's the best known theory on the diversification of life on earth (like the Big Bang, evolution makes no claim about the origin of life, it just describes how the many life-forms we see today have emerged over time), supported by tons upon tons of evidence.

Well, some guy cut the tails of 22 generations of mice and nothing. So evolution applies, but not always.
Then there goes Charles Darwin creating the theory of humans evolving from apes.
Years later some other guy said that before apes, we were TOADS.

> By the way, your grammar, vocabulary and spelling is unusually well developed for a self-proclaimed elementary school student. A bit strange ...

Actually, in one year i'm going to middle school. But yes, I've started learning English really well since I was a young kid.

> Is it easier to say than the word "(great) ape" though? Because this would be the correct word. The great apes are: chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans and ... humans:
> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hominidae
>
> All of them are intelligent, social creatures. All of them can make their own tools and use them. All of them can communicate with the members of their own species, can teach their young new skills, etc.
> One of them is the most intelligent life-form on planet earth (as far as we know): The human.

Ape... oops, I forgot about that term for an instant.

> Glad to hear you're not sure. I hope you'll forgive that I won't be holding my breath. I see no reason to be worried by unsubstantiated apocalyptic "predictions".

Yeah, maybe it will end up being fake, or it's just scheduled to happen in 100 years, maybe?

This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.