Need Some Education On EVOLUTION? Start Here! Perry & Axal take note!

by Seeker4 178 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Abaddon

  RAF

  So the argument is that I'm insisting that evolution is wrong ... NO NO NO ...

  I said that is what is SEEMED like due to language barrier.

  I insiste to say that stating that evolution is a proof is just as improvable as God does existe.

  Ah, well, that is something I would disagree with you on. There is far more proof of evolution than there is of god. If you can find me fossilised god bones, or instances where you can observe god today, then I stand corrected.

  But it doesn't matter whether there is more proof of evolution than of god. Your experience of god is revelatory, not evidential. Evolution isn't revalatory, it IS evidential.

  I don't think you would claim you have proof (other than what has been 'revealed' inside you) of god.

  An evolutionist is quite unlikely to make a claim without some evidence.

  You seem to feel that admitting this (and it is a fact, there is more evidence supporting evoluionary theory than for god) is admitting something bad, or something that reduces your idea of god. It shouldn't be.

  If you believe by revelation, then don't feel your beliefs are belittled if other people say that evolution has more evidence. Well OF COURSE IS DOES, it is an evidential science not a revelatory experience.

  It is like someone who 'believes' in rugby feeling belittled by someone who believes in football saying that football has more players. The number of players of football has NOTHING to do with the validity of the belief of a rugby believer.

  YOU BELIEVE even if you know that it is a theory.

  Because there is no other theory explaining how it happened, not even something half way close. Thus what am I to do? Be an agnostic evolutionist "Well, evolution probably exists, but we may be the product of a sneeze from a giant star cat from a different dimension"? That's silly. Why should I doubt the ONLY theory of origins that actually works? Why should I doubt the cow in my living room fell from an airplane?

  To cater for the small chance the theory is wrong is unreasonable; 'the traffic light seems to be red but it may be green'. That's no way to live life.

  As there are NO competitive theories it is quite reasonable to say 'as evolution is the only theory supported by the evidence I think that is how it happened'.

  And you actually did understand what I've said : Exactly it looks like I'm a pantheist with a Christian perstective

  so we can't totally agree on the evolution process from the start and as on thing to create everything if not God in itself. (but that's what the bible is saying - Spinosa didn't bring anything new on the table).we are an all in one.

  Do you realise your interpretation of the Bible and the pantheistic beliefs that YOU get from the Bible would be disagreed with by the majority of Bible believers? If you have one possible interpretation of a book, how do YOU know you are right. Where's the proof? Maybe Calvanists are right (horrid idea), or maybe Roman Catholics are right?

  At least the theory I support has no realistic competitor, but the hypothesis of god you support has an almost infinate number of competing hypotheses of god and no method of determining which is right as none are based on evidence.

  Of coures, I don't have a problem with your beliefs; you're welcome to them. You seem to have a problem with evolutionary beliefs to an extent you criticise it for faults your own beliefs have to a far greater extent.

  The question would be why it's easier to believe that not even from the very start a fish can become a human step by step with no proof of any link) yes we do evoluate to accomodate ourselve to our environement it looks like it is limited (that's a fact too since there is no links prooved - so from that, this fact looks more like a proof) NO?

  You ARE doing it. On one hand you say you are not 'insisting that evolution is wrong', then you go ahead and insist evolution is wrong.

  You do so without an awful lot of knowledge about the subject - this is not an insult, it is a statement. Just how much DO you know about the fossil recorL of pentadactyl tetrapods in order to make the above statement?

  Please, answer my earlier question; what would prove evolution to you?

  Why I think what I'm thinkin is : we think, we have a spirit ...

  And then ask yourself what would I ask to prove the 'spirit' you believe in.

  And then see if you are applying the same standards.

  All the best

  G :-)
• 

  RAF

  Abaddon

  At least the theory I support has no realistic competitor, but the hypothesis of god you support has an almost infinate number of competing hypotheses of god and no method of determining which is right as none are based on evidence.

  Ok so you support a theory - this theory do not exclude the other one (from what is proved by now) which have lots of interpretations. Who cares about the competitor?Everyboby can believe in what they want since it doesn't hurt?

  Of coures, I don't have a problem with your beliefs; you're welcome to them. You seem to have a problem with evolutionary beliefs to an extent you criticise it for faults your own beliefs have to a far greater extent.

  What you see has a critic is a question which have an answer ; IS THERE LINKS?

  Please, answer my earlier question; what would prove evolution to you?

  (about the whole process from the start) The links

  And then ask yourself what would I ask to prove the 'spirit' you believe in.

  I don't know what you would ask. You might ask whatever question comes to your mind to explore if my reasonning makes sens to you ...

  And then see if you are applying the same standards.

  That's what I do ...
• 

  Seeker4

  RAF,
  
  Might I suggest you research evolution, the meaning of a scientific theory, and the concept of evolutionary links and preferably in French?
  
  Abaddon is right in that you don't seem to have much of an understanding of this subject that you are writing a lot about. Perhaps it's due to the language issue. I'm not sure. But you don't seem to have any knowledge about the proof for evolution, and you might want to really take the time to study that.
  
  If it is simply a matter of understanding what you refer to as "links" in the evolutionary process, you need to study that. Can you see that because evolution is a process of change, essentially every living thing is a link?
  
  S4
• 

  dark angle

  true indeed SEEKER4, ABADON! (& some here). thanks for taking pains in explaining to others here that evolutionary theory is equally attractive but far more compelling in explaining the existence of diversity of life than the literal creation idea. God might be a master evolutionist!
• 

  RAF

  S4,

  Again I understand your point of view … Not only I’ve read about it, but I’ve even seen full movies as documentaries ans debats on the subject. So again why do you think I don’t know enough about that? Because you feel that for you it explains everything? Ok your right to believe them.

  If there is something I can get very quick it’s a concept since I’m interested in the subject. When I read a book or see something when my emotion is not involved I just turn it into a concept every details can be forgotten, because they will come along where they will appear coherent in any process (maybe not the one I was enquiring – but any in any concept and development).

  What I’m feeling about the Evolution theory (even from what is proved by now) is this:

  Scientists who are working on the “what do we come from question” don’t know where to turn (and I understand that it is the only way for them – it’s their job after all), so they are still following the same path (there is truly no other without considering Essence of everything /God as already existing) and whatever they found out still can’t exclude “IT”,

  More they will have means to research and more they will find ways to explain the process that we already know about evolution capacities (But not links to lead a species to another, and scientists really need that to make this entire theory credible – but we miss archaeologist material here … that’s the problem – if they have been able to find several types (but not compatible to bread – since they have means to state about that … So …it doesn’t help them) it just means that those types could have been animals/species who disappeared like Dinosaurs – that’s way back – and we have proof for that … So … where is the proof in what we are talking about to make the entire thing ok as a real proof? … )

  So now the way scientists do talk about what they know to make it credible (because we need something to stand on it) is that the theory is highly reliable (ON WHAT? in regard of my previous paragraph … ).See you can explain a process but a process which have occurred for millions years leaves hints/materiel … and this is not the case here.

  I’m a believer (I’m neither proud or ashamed of it), my faith is stronger than ever (I have no reason to be scared of God or it spirit / the only ones I can be scared of is myself and fellow human beings), my belief won’t hurt you or anyone (what can hurt others is who I am and I can be whatever when I don’t take care (it happens). That’s when you can call me names and that I will feel concerned about it - if I feel wrong.

  But I understood why you got nervous on this (you explained it very well – I do understand a bit of English)… I do not think you are bad because of that … We all get weird for very personal reasons, that some people might or might not understand (because we did not all have the same life). It’s good to bully someone who is hurting someone else … and then there is still that question : what is hurting? (What will hurt you might not hurt me and vice and versa) that’s when it’s all about being able to a better understanding at some point regarding each other … and on this topic my christian belief as how I feel about it (my point of view) is that we just have the right believe what suites our spirit/state of mind needs (since it doesn't hurt badly other people).
• 

  dark angle

  HILLARY STEP, thanks for pointing that out. i did some surfing about ID and it opend my mind, im still so bounded and inclined to rescue a notion of an intelligent creator. sorry
• 

  acsot

  Merde! I should be working right now but can't help reading these threads. I know this is an English board but I hope the mods indulge me this time.
  
  Corinne, peut-être tu aimerais lire le suivant concernant l'évolution (publié par l'Université McGill ici à Montréal). Le lien est: http://lecerveau.mcgill.ca/flash/d/d_05/d_05_s/d_05_s_her/d_05_s_her.html
  
  Je mets en relief certaines phrases pertinentes:
  
  
  "Cette théorie est maintenant acceptée de tous les scientifiques parce qu’un nombre incalculable de faits plaident en sa faveur et que ses nombreux mécanismes ont été maintes fois confirmés.
  
  
  Le problème survient lorque ces gens tentent de donner un vernis scientifique au créationnisme. Car leur « méthode » est exactement l’inverse de la méthode scientifique : ils partent avec des conclusions qu’ils ne remettent pas en cause et ne retiennent que les observations qui vont dans le sens de ces conclusions."
  
  
  There are several links on the above-mentioned site, many in French. It is "pour débutants" - for beginners (like myself also, Corinne), so easy to understand for non-scientific folk like me.
  
  
  It shows the pseudo-science of creationists and their attempts at giving a scientific veneer to their arguments. It also explains the fact of evolution from a scientific definition.
  
  
  Je retourne au travail maintenant mais je pourrai peut-être faire de la traduction - if time permits, I may be able to translate some stuff back and forth between French and English for Corinne's sake and for everyone's understanding. That is, I'm at work and actually have to do some stuff over the next few hours, so if the posts are short I will perhaps have the necessary time.
  
  
  It is just after noon here, and I will try and check back in mid-afternoon.
  
  
  Abaddon: I just quickly looked up some references to Ediacaran fossils, pretty fascinating stuff. Have saved the link to read later.
• 

  startingover

  Just want to throw in my take on this debate.

  When I left the JW's because of things I discovered, 607 being a big one, I started down a road I quickly learned I hadn't really been on before. One where I was actually thinking and researching. The humbling thing for me was figuring out that I wasn't near as smart as I thought I was. I learned that I wasn't prepared for real research on scientific subjects. I couldn't seem to get far because I would find myself taking so much time looking up words I didn't know the meaning of, I would soon have a headache from concentrating so hard. It's hard when you are 50 years old and run a business and have lots of things going on in your life that demand your thoughts to spend the time and effort to really learn anything. I am certain that the hard drive in my head is full and I am operating with RAM, which of course gets deleted when I shut down to sleep. That high school diploma I received in 1972 at a time when I firmly believed what I was being told about 1975 sure doesn't mean much anymore because I took the easiest route possible to get it.

  But for me, I have learned enough about evolution to make it the only plausible explanation right now. A big breakthrough for me was learning that the word "theory" means something different to the scientific community that it does for someone whose education has been limited by the WTS. It was a real revelation to discover that "theory" doesn't mean "guess", something I see the believers on this thread believing. Seems to me it's real easy to believe there's a being out there responsible for us and our surroundings. But there is no way I can go with that when the way he uses to communicate his wishes and commands is through this book called the bible, which may or may not be his inspired word depending on where you were born, a book which when read by 100 different people come up with 100 different interpretations.

  And please don't tell me Jesus spoke to you. Why you and not me? Could there be another explanation?

  Great comments on this thread, I'm sure from my words above you know who you are. And RAF, are you French Baby Face?
• 

  RAF

  Thanks Ascott for your efforts :

  I'm not into the creationist stuff ... (many things takes time ... that's part of life).
  
  Evolution is ok to a certain extand to me about the Whole thing I'm into proofs like I've said in my previous post means :
  (real onces = material as it should be possible to have at our stage regarding human being along the time)
  I mean if the before category can't be bread with the next one (from what comes the whole process of evolution of the next one - evolution or bread with another spieces - back to the original probleme, but in way less time).
• 

  Apostate Kate

  :Very poor speeling by the way

  OMFG.. bwahahaha.

  GBL

  You evolving folks have got to loosen up, speel was a joke. I speeled it that way to show that I was not trying to be mean and we all make mistakes.

  And thanks for the compliment, Kate - intellectually superior godman, indeed! And you hardly know me! Okay, whose been talking??

  It must be the superior way you win friends and influence enemies. I always feel so special after you have slung your negative adjectives around.

  Someone said that in these discussions science dominates blah blah blah and theists dominate the tone. What I have learned is presenting science here as a theist will only result in any scientific facts being swiftly negated by someone parroting information they learned from Talk Origens. Someone once actually stated that the Second Law of thermodynamics was not a physical law at all and the law of entropy does not apply to evolution. I disagree. They claim to have proof that adaptation to the environment can create a higher more complex life form yet fail to show legible proof published by qualified scientists. If adaptation otherwise known as survival of the fittest created higher life forms then why is the fossel record full of extinct species? Is entropy at work here? Do you know how many species have become extinct in the last decade alone? How does survival of the fittest, adaptation fit in here? Sorry but it looks like entropy at work to me. These are legitamate questions but instead of being answered and addressed will most likely be dismissed and I will be called pathetic and ignorant for presenting them. There have been many scientific theories that have been scrapped. Example; Biogenesis
  

  Biogenesis is the process of lifeforms producing other lifeforms, e.g. a spider lays eggs, which form into spiders.

  The term is also used for the assertion that life can only be passed on by living things, in contrast to abiogenesis, which holds that life can arise from non-life under suitable circumstances, although these circumstances still remain unknown.

  Until the 19th century, it was commonly believed that life frequently arose from non-life under certain circumstances, a process known as spontaneous generation. This belief was due to the common observation that maggots or mould appeared to arise spontaneously when organic matter was left exposed. It was later discovered that under all these circumstances commonly observed, life only arises from life.

  A second, obsolete meaning of biogenesis was given by the FrenchJesuit priest, scientist and philosopher Pierre Teilhard de Chardin to mean the origin of life itself — now usually referred to as abiogenesis — reflecting the modern belief that the origin of life was from non-life

  So we go from abiogenesis theory because scientists believed maggots spontaneously appeared, to biogenesis as a fact, life comes from life, now back to abiogenesis theory to support the idea that life began as an accident from nothing.

  Sorry but in my pathetic ignorant mind nothing plus nothing equels nothing. I've studied abiogenesis in depth as an amateur and I find the reasoning behind it pathetically ignorant.