What if the Theory of Evolution is Right? (Part I)

If we are not to make mistakes in reasoning, it's important to know what we mean by the words we use. I take the truth of a statement to be its correspondence to objective fact. I take meaningfulness to be a feature of an individual conscious experiencer's mental state. If you use the words "truth" and "meaningfulness" differently, please say how you intend them.

Help ?....somebody smart out there ?

This guy I know said that water actually expands just above it's freezing point, then goes back to shrinking. I can hardly believe this person, but he's pretty reliable. Is this true ? You could ask me about a stick sandwich, but this one sounds crazee. And if he's right, then why ?

Thanks in advance........

(oh, & sorry for the wayward byebye....just wanna know)

einstein99, I am not sure why you say what you say, in the face of the evidence painstakingly gathered over many years by many scientists. Do you deny that they have gathered evidence? Do you interpret that evidence differently than they do?

Θρησκεία και τη φιλοσοφία είναι νεκροί.

Философии и религии мертвы.

Filosofia ja uskonto ovat kuolleet.

दर्शन और धर्म दोनों मर चुके हैं।

According to Wiki,the modern human start to develop art and religious behavior since around 10.000 years ago.Thus still there are rooms for creationist to claim Adam have existed since around 10.000 BC (according to religion story).

Yes, indeed it one of the amazing properties of water.

Imagine how many fish would die if shallow lakes froze from the bottom up, and pushed the fish to the surface.

Without this "special quality," ice would not float, since colder substances contract, and are typically heavier substances.

I'm not a science bod but I can explain in simplistic terms as I remember it from school.  It's got something to do with the density and the shape of the molecules.  The shape of water ice crystals under a microscope has crystalline holes in it and therefore takes up more room... also why ice floats I guess.

David Bohm on perception and Truth

In the above video, David Bohm explains what I have been thinking about Scientific theory. Science is a kind of truth. It is the best truth of our perceptions.

But what is really out there, it cannot say. It only speaks about what we perceive. Therefore I believe it cannot be the Absolute Truth.

Thinking through posters and T-shirt slogans  ??  Great job.

If it was the absolute Truth, we would have uncovered it by now. But we are doing it piece by piece, as we build better instruments. Which means to a large extent it is dependent upon us. And unless we are Infinite (in our mind and resources), we won't be able to discover everything.

Thanks Zee and Baby Tiger !

That's really interesting. IOW's, since it expands, it would seem to affect all sorts of parts of our ecosystem........

   You obviously can't help being yourself:

I agree with MindWalk here. If you think that nobody contributes to philosophy I can name several living great philosophers (Badiou, Žižek ...).

Also I don't know how do you think that Hume "killed" philosophy when he was "killed" by Kant's transcendental philosophy.

Philosophy isn't dead. Mmonty Python keeps it alive:

Immanuel Kant was a real piss-ant who was very rarely stable.
Heidegger, Heidegger was a boozy beggar who could think you under the table. ..

David Hume could out-consume Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel.
And Wittgenstein was a beery swine who was just as sloshed as Schlegel.

There's nothing Nietzsche couldn't teach 'ya 'bout the raising of the wrist.
Socrates, himself, was permanently pissed.

John Stuart Mill, of his own free will, after half a pint of shandy was particularly ill.
Plato, they say, could stick it away, half a crate of whiskey every day!

Aristotle, Aristotle was a bugger for the bottle,
Hobbes was fond of his Dram.

And René Descartes was a drunken fart:
"I drink, therefore I am."

Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.

Regards,

Lou

BartoRex: "I agree with MindWalk here. If you think that nobody contributes to philosophy I can name several living great philosophers (Badiou, Žižek ...).

Also I don't know how do you think that Hume "killed" philosophy when he was "killed" by Kant's transcendental philosophy." 

   Now, now... You like, MW, are putting strawman words in my mouth. He said that I claimed philosophy is worthless. Now you are claiming that I said "nobody contributes to philosophy". Are you both comprehension impaired?

   Read a bit of Hume. Then you might see. Here is just one reference. Google something such as "David Hume killed philosophy".

   For your reference: 

   http://www.ask.com/wiki/A_Treatise_of_Human_Nature?qsrc=3044

   The major point is that philosophy and religion are dead. Yes...yes...people still believe in nonsense. Most people in fact. But if you want real information about where we came from, how the universe functions...go to science.

   Does science have all the answers. No. Not yet. Maybe never. But we have many, many answers. If you want all the answers, then yes...you must go to religion and philosophy.

Nietzsche was a troll.