Cyprus-Forum.com

[Hermes]

Yes, that sounds like GR. A true Greek to his bones!

oh hermie... as much as i disapprove of the damaging hellenic blindspot, so prevalent amongst so many cypriots, i can't help but have affection for the accompanying naivety.

I know exactly what I'm saying, Zoc. Greeks are clearly not without their faults. And all their faults are evident in dear GR. Which makes him an exemplary Greek in my eyes. Mind you that list applies to most nationalities. I've lived amongst the English long enough and believe me 'lazy, crooked, untrustworthy, full of shit and living in the past' is very apt for them too...

[Hermes]

Charles Darwin, invented evolution.

Dear Me Ed. The Ancient Greeks discovered evolution long before Darwin...

One of the first evolutionary theories was proposed by Thales of Miletus (640–546 BC) in the province of Ionia on the coast near Greece. He was also evidently the first person to advance the idea that life first originated in water.3 Birdsell notes that Thales’ view of biological evolution ‘was not too far from modern truth’. One of Thales’ students, Anaximander (611–547 BC), developed these ideas further, concluding that humans evolved from fish or fishlike forms.4 These fish-men eventually cast off their scaly skin and moved to dry land where they have been ever since.

The Greek philosopher Empedocles (493–435 BC), often called the father of evolutionary naturalism, argued that chance alone ‘was responsible for the entire process’ of the evolution of simple matter into modern humankind.5 Empedocles concluded that spontaneous generation fully explained the origin of life, and he also taught that all living organism types gradually evolved by the process of trial-and-error recombinations of animal parts.6 He also believed that natural selection was the primary mechanism of evolution, the fittest being more likely to survive to pass their traits on to their offspring.7

In short, Empedocles’ pre-Darwin ‘survival–of-the-fittest’ theory taught that life evolved by pruning the less-fit life forms—i.e. the merciless destruction of the weaker animals and plants. Unfortunately, many early Greek manuscripts have been lost, but the texts that survive provide enough details to determine with some accuracy what the ancient Greeks believed. This evidence motivated Osborn to conclude that ‘Darwin owes more even to the Greeks than we have ever recognized.’

http://creation.com/evolutionary-natura ... cient-idea

[bill cobbett]

Charles Darwin, invented evolution.

Dear Me Ed. The Ancient Greeks discovered evolution long before Darwin...

One of the first evolutionary theories was proposed by Thales of Miletus (640–546 BC) in the province of Ionia on the coast near Greece. He was also evidently the first person to advance the idea that life first originated in water.3 Birdsell notes that Thales’ view of biological evolution ‘was not too far from modern truth’. One of Thales’ students, Anaximander (611–547 BC), developed these ideas further, concluding that humans evolved from fish or fishlike forms.4 These fish-men eventually cast off their scaly skin and moved to dry land where they have been ever since.

The Greek philosopher Empedocles (493–435 BC), often called the father of evolutionary naturalism, argued that chance alone ‘was responsible for the entire process’ of the evolution of simple matter into modern humankind.5 Empedocles concluded that spontaneous generation fully explained the origin of life, and he also taught that all living organism types gradually evolved by the process of trial-and-error recombinations of animal parts.6 He also believed that natural selection was the primary mechanism of evolution, the fittest being more likely to survive to pass their traits on to their offspring.7

In short, Empedocles’ pre-Darwin ‘survival–of-the-fittest’ theory taught that life evolved by pruning the less-fit life forms—i.e. the merciless destruction of the weaker animals and plants. Unfortunately, many early Greek manuscripts have been lost, but the texts that survive provide enough details to determine with some accuracy what the ancient Greeks believed. This evidence motivated Osborn to conclude that ‘Darwin owes more even to the Greeks than we have ever recognized.’

http://creation.com/evolutionary-natura ... cient-idea

Hermey my dear, Science has as its foundation some very hard and and laborious work, in the forms of such things as observations and experimentation, leading to proofs.

Any one of us can seat on our our sofas on a Sunday afternoon or in the cafenions of Ancient Greece and come up with endless lists of ideas to describe the world around us and in the years to come someone may find out that one of us is more or less in the right ball-park, ignoring of course the thousands of us who got it wrong.

Ideas remain just interesting thoughts unless they are accompanied by such things as the methodology of the work and documented research, with the proof. Without these, the work can't be reviewed and challenged and we can't call the work "Science".

Using the only quality benchmark we can use, which is the scientific methodology of recent times, the best authority we can ascribe to most of the work of ancient cultures is interesting "kafenion talk".

[Hermes]

Using the only quality benchmark we can use, which is the scientific methodology of recent times, the best authority we can ascribe to most of the work of ancient cultures is interesting "kafenion talk".

My dear bill, this is an absurd thing to say. You do ancient scientists, astronomers, biologists, philosophers and mathematicians a great disservice. Their work was not mere idle speculation but based on those very methodological and observational principles you so admire in modern times.

The first principle of science is the creation of hypotheses to explain observations as they are known to you. Even Darwinian evolution is still a hypothesis and Darwin was constructing a hypothesis to explain the facts as they were known to him at the time. His work is closer to the methodology of the ancient Greeks than you think.

Darwin made some observations based on fossils and other natural observations then created a hypothesis to explain them. He did not 'prove' evolution, he constructed a hypothesis about evolution which is still subject to scientific debate and controversy. Exactly what the Ancient Greeks were doing...

[ZoC]

I've lived amongst the English long enough and believe me 'lazy, crooked, untrustworthy, full of shit and living in the past' is very apt for them too...

u think i have any more time for the supercilious, fork-tongued, logic-chopping englezi than i do for the kalamaraes? a curse on both their houses... and one extra - with a poisonous cherry on top - for the vromodourchi!

[Get Real!]

The Ancient Greeks discovered evolution long before Darwin...

Maybe it would be easier to speak of things the Greeks DIDN’T invent like… solvency, order, heterosexuality, humility, competence, etc.

[ZoC]

The Ancient Greeks discovered evolution long before Darwin...

Maybe it would be easier to speak of things the Greeks DIDN’T invent like… solvency, order, heterosexuality, humility, competence, etc.

and stoicism.

[bill cobbett]

Using the only quality benchmark we can use, which is the scientific methodology of recent times, the best authority we can ascribe to most of the work of ancient cultures is interesting "kafenion talk".

My dear bill, this is an absurd thing to say. You do ancient scientists, astronomers, biologists, philosophers and mathematicians a great disservice. Their work was not mere idle speculation but based on those very methodological and observational principles you so admire in modern times.

The first principle of science is the creation of hypotheses to explain observations as they are known to you. Even Darwinian evolution is still a hypothesis and Darwin was constructing a hypothesis to explain the facts as they were known to him at the time. His work is closer to the methodology of the ancient Greeks than you think.

Darwin made some observations based on fossil records and created a hypothesis to explain them. He did not 'prove' evolution, he constructed a hypothesis about evolution which is still subject to scientific debate and controversy. Exactly what the Ancient Greeks were doing...

In which case Hermey you need to post a link to all the data that the Ancients produced in their work to back up their ideas. Without hard to get data there can be no real scientific assessment of their work.

Darwin by the way, although he did research the fossil record, is on record as saying that because of its paucity, the fossil record wasn't a reliable one. Darwin did however do the work, spending years in the field collecting his data in the form of living samples.

... and data can be soooo hard to get, and without it we can prove nothing...

The Example of Newton and Gravity and Hard to Get Data... Of course Newton didn't discover gravity, that was prob discovered by an ancient caveman who wondered why it was so difficult to get up out of his sofa after a beer on a Sunday afternoon. What Newton did do is to describe its strength by saying that its strength is inversely proportional to distance and came up with an equation to give its magnitude. Newton's work holds us in good stead for solar system distances, but it does fall apart beyond those sort of distances and we then turn to Einstein for a better description of gravity.

... but and Newton to his credit is on record as saying this, Newton didn't say how gravity worked and again he says and says very honestly in Principia that he will leave it to others to describe how gravity works... and interestingly it's only in recent months, after spending billions and billions of Euros at CERN, that we may have come up with the data that points to a description of how gravity or at least "mass" works, through the Higgs Boson or more accurately through the Higgs Field.

Hermey mate, there's no substitute for the hard and laborious work of the scientific method which includes collecting data and in the case of gravity it's taken 500 years to acquire it, to get anywhere near a decent description of gravity. Now where is the data for the Ancients mate, their observations as you call them, isn't the truth that there is very, very little of it and in the case of many it was a simple fleeting, observation? ... and no matter how insightful the fleeting observation, it ain't Science.

[Me Ed]

Whilst the British showcased their music with an impressive set at the London Olympics, why was a dutchman hired to flip records at the 2004 Athens Olympics?

[GreekIslandGirl]

Not only did Darwin appreciate what Aristotle started for him:

From Darwin's own letter to Dr Ogle in 1882, he said:

My dear Dr Ogle
You must let me thank you for the pleasurew hich the Introductiont o
the Aristotle book has given me. I have rarely read anything which has
interested me more; though I have not read as yet more than a quarter of
the book proper. From quotations which I had seen I had a high notion of
Aristotle's merits, but I had not the most remote notion what a wonderful
man he was. Linnaeus and Cuvier have been my two gods, though in
very different ways, but they were mere school-boys to old Aristotle.

- But Darwin owed even more to Democritus and the other Greek reductionists (aka scientists) ...