Can you at explain what you mean by this.And what is changing exactly?
I would say Sir Isaac Newton is the greatest of all time
How deep does the rabbit hole go?How deep into human prediction do you want to go?
Things are changing, and im pretty sure no one is going to be able to predict jack shit.
If however, as you claim, humans are changing, then of course nobody is going to be able to predict them, because there will not be anything to base it on...
Just the surface will do.
Hit me up when you see it...What determines/constrains human nature?To what extent is human nature malleable?How does it vary between people and populations?
(so no, we shouldn't take (Isaac Newton's) prediction of the end of the world very seriously at all )
Millions of years of evolution.
Its not really, put in the right situation we revert back to basics.
Theres a bit of a difference between Female and Male.
"In the right situation"..whats the point!? Imo we'd never revert back to basics there'd always be the evolutionarily change there somewhere, that is nature and the way things are done. What you think would be basic's wouldn't be a permanent thing. Evolution is always there, always moving.
Predicting human survival skills/instincts on a basic/primal level is not predicting human nature.
I bet in 1000 years sex will still sell.Young males will have a tenency towards war stories/toys/films/games/holodecksFemales will still buy things to make themselves look good.Men will still buy things to show off thier status.I just predicted 4 things. Do you disagree with them?
To some, perhaps a past extent, you are correct. But take a long hard look at the world now...Things are changing, and im pretty sure no one is going to be able to predict jack shit.
Young males will have a tenency towards war stories/toys/films/games/holodecks
Of course we are changing. You know this, you have your whole life. Education and religion are alike based on the assumption that it is possible to change human nature. In fact, it requires very little investigation to show that the one thing we can say with certainty about any living thing is that it cannot keep from changing. Without change there can be no life.
I just predicted 4 things. Do you disagree with them?
Not at all. Why would i assume those things will stop being human nature? Just becasue it changes does not mean we will stop doing other things.
This is an interesting article about flaws in the theory of evolution. I haven't read the whole thing, but I can see it's good
However on a more serious note, for those clinging to the religious dogma of gravitational theory this article is a must read.
If we have Universal Gravity now, then Universal health care will be sure to follow. It is this kind of Universalism that saps a nation's moral fiber.
that question is difficult but the simple answer is no, science doesn't explain everything there are plenty of things out side of sciences scopes - for example, questions like "why do people listen to lady gaga and coldplay" science would be of little use, that is more for the psychologists and the sociologists - the tools of science are excellent for working out most things but like most tools you can only use it for appropriate jobs
but a similar challenge that i will give you - are there any questions that religion can answer?
I was really meaning things within sciences' realm.If you can admit that there are things ("occurrences") that science cannot answer:Does that not leave room for a superior intelligence or god-like entity to exist? I think my point being, can science really state unequivocally that a god-like entity does not exist?
PS: Feynman is awesome - he's a regular guest on a science-based podcast I listen to. Do you happen to have links for the Lectures on Physics?
I can't figure out if you're trying to be ironic. The article supports evolution, it's just exposing common misconceptions about what it is or isn't.However on a more serious note, for those clinging to the religious dogma of gravitational theory this article is a must read.
science can not state that a god-like being does not exist, but that does not mean that a god-like being does exist or it is reasonable to think that one does - science can not state that a leprechaun-like entity does not exist but it can look for leprechaun like activity and the absence of that suggests that there are no leprechauns
ok - now i have something to think about - Feynman has been dead 20 years and he is a guest on a podcast? <- well if god was oing to resurrect someone else at least this time its a physisist
Just the surface will do.Name one way in-which human nature has changed in say the last 100 years
When you come to think of it, almost all human behavior and activity is not essentially any different from animal behavior. The most advanced technologies and craftsmanship bring us, at best, up to the super-chimpanzee level. Actually, the gap between, say, Plato or Nietzsche and the average human is greater than the gap between that chimpanzee and the average human. The realm of the real spirit, the true artist, the saint, the philosopher, is rarely achieved.Why so few? Why is world history and evolution not stories of progress but rather this endless and futile addition of zeroes. No greater values have developed. Hell, the Greeks 3,000 years ago were just as advanced as we are. So what are these barriers that keep people from reaching anywhere near their real potential? The answer to that can be found in another question, and that’s this: Which is the most universal human characteristic - fear or laziness?
