Slacker,
Sorry for the delayed response.
" In normal conversation, most people, and occasionally myself, will use the word "theory" synanamously with the word "hunch". In other words, a "theory" coversationally may mean a really good guess, which doesnt neccesarily have the backing of facts. However, scientifically a "theory" is something else entirely. A scientific "theory" is defined as a "set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena." So what evolution is, and really what every scientific theory is, is something that looks at observable facts and then attempts to explain them, and then also make predictions based on the observations. That is why every scientific theory changes. So you establish the facts and then come up with an explanation for those facts."
I like this explanation very easy to understand. I thought that a theory filled in the gaps rather than explain the facts, so as you said a hunch. THe hunch version I take it is wrong.
OK, so we have observable facts and we need to explain them and we do so by postulating a theory, the facts remain as facts of course nothing can change that or can it. I have one question from this. Can we be in disagreement in what constitutes a fact, and indeed look at an entity or process, and I see one fact and you see another?
"I invite you to answer this question. If you had never heard of creation of evolution, and just started wandering through a science museum looking at all of this yourself, all the skeletons, models, mockups and everything else, and there were no signs or any explanation for what you were looking at besides basic names and a detail of features, and then you had two people approach you when your slate was clean, and one presented creation and what they felt its proof was, and another presented evolution and what they felt its proof was, which one would you believe?"
To be honest having experienced the immense brain power that had gone into creating complex human creations like satelites down to the realistic looking artificial flowers I'm looking at right now and everything in between my first comment to the evolutionist would be you seem to have identified the process by which we are here but who actually designed the process to create such results. And to the creationist I would say you've identified the who but you got the how wrong. Rib my arse.
Since I joined this forum I've been trying to marry the two theories. To me personally it makes more sense. I'm not talking about a biblical creator just a creator. Or it could just be that this universe is just preprogrammed to create stars and life maybe God is the universe.
The Origin-of-Life Foundation, Inc. The Secret $1,000,000 Prize
by Deputy Dog 72 Replies latest watchtower scandals
-
Spectrum
-
Spectrum
Abaddon,
Raging debate,
meaning there are two sides that are at loggerheads, court battles, school teachers resigning scientist that believe in ID (regardless of your view of ID).
"Please define theory in your own words."
Theory, well I got this one wrong it seems because I remember in school being told that when a theory is proven it is then no longer a theory but a fact and since evolutionists describe evolution as a theory I assumed they were talking about educated guesses.
"Why the double standard Spectrum? You don't have any proof (in the sense I think you mean) for the alternative theory, yet you demand 'proof' of evolution."
Fair point, but it is not about double standards. It is simply that I don't want to go from one bullshit answer to another, like a fool that converts from one religion to another believing that God will find more favour in him, just because Abaddon will otherwise brow beat me.
I'm looking for the truth not an alternative lie. -
ellderwho
Pretty much everyone on this thread can see that, but of course, despite the fact you've not done anything other than advance criticisms it is painfully obvious you don't even understand the refutation of, you're still convinced you're right.
He..he.. you just continue to wallow in your own pool of self-indulgence. You've got everybody and everything figured out. Gee, I should have come to you in the beginning.how much you prove with every post on this subject.
LMAO...what?. Oh man...... ah never mind... re-read my posts' genius, all I've done is poke at your sacred theory. You better get some thicker skin, you've been around long enough.
Anywho, continue on in your getting your origins started, the casual observer awaits.
-
Spectrum
Abaddon,
"Lungfish are dipnomorpha, not tetrapomorpha. They have distinct lungs, not highly adapted gills or 'labyrinth organs' like the Osphronemidae. They were once thought to be ancestors of amphibians, but now it is felt they have a common ancestor they share with amphibians."
I understand the bit above but regardless doesn't a Lungfish exhibit a clear ability for species to go from gills to lungs and fins to legs and water to land. Isn't this what early evolution was all about. fish coming out of the sea and settling on land. Amphibians on the other hand look fully formed and adapted to living on land but like being near water to keep their thin skin moist Lungfish look slugish on land like they are just getting used to the idea. It just looks like an intermediate species to me. Is it?
"Did your parents (assuming they were JW) severely restrict your access to books or TV programmes, or participation in science lessons?"
Nobody took evolution seriously in my day at school. The only exposure we got was David Attenborough's series but it went straight over my head as quack. -
Abaddon
Spectrum
I understand the bit above but regardless doesn't a Lungfish exhibit a clear ability for species to go from gills to lungs and fins to legs and water to land. Isn't this what early evolution was all about. fish coming out of the sea and settling on land. Amphibians on the other hand look fully formed and adapted to living on land but like being near water to keep their thin skin moist Lungfish look slugish on land like they are just getting used to the idea. It just looks like an intermediate species to me. Is it?
It might be seen as an intermediate species, as we have knowledge of forms that seem to fit either side of it. To it initself is the end point thus far reached and thus not intermediate to anything.
But you would be more correct to think of it as a cousin to amphibians, rather than an intermediate between amphibians and fish. Both lungfish and amphibians share characteristics that were possesed by a common ancestor intermediate between them and fish, but both have since that point followed different paths.
Again, the reason why evolutionists are not screaming about lungfish is that the idea evolution needs proving is a lie out around by Creationists that many scientists aren't even interested in responding to, as it is blatently obvious evolution (as a process) is factual, even if the theory of how and why it happens is something still under development. How many cosmologists would bother getting into a debate about heliocentrism of flat-earthim?
Nobody took evolution seriously in my day at school. The only exposure we got was David Attenborough's series but it went straight over my head as quack.
Then why not learn about it using your own initiative instead of (as you seemingly do) assuming that it is something which needs to be proved when you admit you don't know enough to reach that conclusion. I don't want you to believe in evolution 'cause I say so. I want you to believe in evolution because YOU know so. Without doing something about this yourself, this will never happen and your challaneges to the theory will, even though you're an intelligent person, come from an uninformed point-of-view.
ellderwho
Ah, poor diddums; I don't think that there is one part of your last post that isn't deceptive, fallacious, or just plain wrong. I told you why that web pages's arguments were bad. If you're craven enough to avoid responding directly, fine. If you don't understand what I said about those arguments, then admit it and I'll explain it to you. Just stop the empty posturing; if you actually believe what you say then I think we may have to use subtitles for the hard of understanding henceforth. But until you show yourself capable of writing a post that's worth responding too...
-
ellderwho
But until you show yourself capable of writing a post that's worth responding too.
Again, what have I written in this thread? Nothing more than poking at your beliefs? Still the casual observer awaits your response.
-
acsot
Then why not learn about it using your own initiative
hi there, me again. What books would you suggest someone should start off with? I've looked at talkorigins but would rather have a book in hand than read long articles on a computer screen. Is there something like "Evolution 101" you'd recommend?
-
Abaddon
Spectrum
Theory, well I got this one wrong it seems because I remember in school being told that when a theory is proven it is then no longer a theory but a fact and since evolutionists describe evolution as a theory I assumed they were talking about educated guesses.
If you think the THEORY of evolution is educated guesses, my comments re. doing some reading on the subject again apply. However, to be clear, there is the THEORY of evolution (the hows and whys), and the FACT of evolution (as in the massive amount of evidence that organisms change over time). The FACT of Evolution is undeniable by anyone with a reasoning mind. Whether the THEORY is 100%, 95%, 75% or 0% correct is another thing.
Fair point, but it is not about double standards. It is simply that I don't want to go from one bullshit answer to another, like a fool that converts from one religion to another believing that God will find more favour in him, just because Abaddon will otherwise brow beat me.
We were both reponding at the same time earlier, so I'd already advised some self-study and not to listen to me.
To be frank, Ogabog the Goatherd's really smart idea of how the skyman made things and the modern theory of evolution can't both fairly be called bullshit answers, as they're just not comparable. Why not own up to having a presentiment in favour of Creation because of your upbringing and see if this is justified?
I mean, if you know as little of the subject as you do, how do you know evolution is bullshit? Isn't that a masive assumption, that you are right and all those scientists are wrong? Isn't that carrying on believing what you believed when you DID believe in bullshit? Believing what the people who taught you bullshit said, still?
Evolutionary theory is the only convincing explanation of the evidence for evolution we see around us. Without doing research yourself, you will never be able to descern bullshit from fact.
As ascot's asking, I'll hopefully be able to suggest some stuff that you might enjoy too; I'm not recommending textbooks, just lay-science stuff, although you might find yourself moving onto textbooks.
Not read this myself but it looks excellent and is well reviewed.
I've read this and found it easier to digest than The Selfish Gene (a classic), but still detailed enough.
Browse around Amazon; the reviews are generally a good indicator... ... and I'm sure your local library has a shelf or two. When I was learning this stuff I actually found books on human sexual biology with no explict coverage of evolution were actually some of the most elegant proofs of evolutionary theory, as even a casual study trashes the idea of Biblegod and makes the idea of specific creation seem rather silly.
But then, as you learn more about science you will see how often evolutionary theory is supported by the processes around us, how it can be used to explain and predict behaviours or forms. Until you do the research though, all of this won't make much sense. Fill your head with books, it's the nicest thing you can do for yourself.
Beware of books claiming to disprove evolution; it's quite likely if you read one you'd be convinced they did, but that is because you don't know enough about evolution, and such books are normally masterpieces of selective argumentation, evasion, casual ignorance and ommission.
You wouldn't know you were being conned. By all means read them AFTER you've given yourself a good grounding in evolution, that way when you throw them across the room in disgust at the intellectual dishonesty and bias of the authors you will know why I get techy sometimes...
If you DON'T do some research on your own you will never be able to have an informed opinion about evolution, only someone else's opinion.
-
acsot
Thanks Abaddon; the two books (Dawkins and the one from the National Academy of Sciences) seem to be just what I was looking for - I've ordered them and will give you an update.
-
Qcmbr
I really really hope that those posting personal jibes aren't like that in real life when not safely hidden behind keyboards otherwise I'd expect some darwinian style removal of said individuals from the gene pool as most people don't put up with continual childish rudeness.
Back to civilization:
What I like about the bible (and my 'extra' beliefs) is that I get the story written by the participants that the mere bones and archaelogical foundations can't tell. Who gives a stuff whether a bit of jawbone is a proto human, extinct ape, transitional species or incorrectly radio carbon dated modern day human - it doesn't have half the importance as the early , written records of people. Stories may be all we have to tell us about semitic tribespeople but give me a made up authentic story written by witnesses before you give me a made up story written by modern day scientists. The bible is many things to many people but its real and tangible and undeniably ancient as compared with absolutely pretend pictures of hairy apemen in some sort of social setting that is purely dreamed up by modern day artists and scientists. One jawbone in the hands of a scientist with a good imagination gives a whole culture and wonderful world of hunter gatherers that does not exist in any way shape or form in the simple teeth and rotted gob in their hand. Its a hoot watching who can draw the next part of the evolutionary fairy tale regarding human pre-history. Now before any of the evolutionists get uppity regarding their science 'bibles' full of naff illustrations, outlandish imaginations and religious science patter I think they are onto something when they stick to science. What gets me - as a person leaning towards creationism over a long period of time - staring in amazement is the thinly veiled desire of some evolutionists to argue that religion is dead long live stunning good luck. Some who wear the mantle of evolutionists seem unwilling to state their case (which I doubt many would argue with) without resorting to a worldview approach as follows:
Evolutionist - ..but look at the panda thumb its clearly evolved from a previous configuration.
Creationist - ..interesting..
Evolutionist - ..idiot goatherd believer can't you see what I just said?
Creationist - ..the panda's thumb..
Evolutionist - no , fool, what I said was your God is dead didn't you hear me.
Its this leap from evidence to extrapolated idiocy that fuels this debate (and in fairness there are plenty of creationist guilty as well).
There is plenty of room for God to not need to work magic all the time to get things done - science isn't something that God would avoid since should He exist He created the rules anyway and on the flip side there is plenty of room for the facts of evolution in religion.
I want to hear about panda thumbs, ice cores, lungfish and dwarf people - I just don't want to have it peppered with words like 'lunatic', 'idiot' etc.. I also want to read first hand accounts no matter how true or untrue they may be because they are our ancestors and their story was worth preserving and thus far in all my personal studies and experience I happen to think they were onto a good thing as well. In the meantime made up stories by modern day humans and rudeness should bog off while the grown ups learn and discuss about this marvelous world and its fantastic inhabitants while giving everyone the dignity to make up their own mind. Flame on.