If evolution is true ?

by D wiltshire 88 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  D wiltshire

  lark,
  Lark I never said this:
  

  In your post directed to me, you asserted that scientists ignore facts that don't fit their theory. Please provide one example

  I used singular and not plural,here's my quote:
  

  I don't think a scientist is being truthful when he forms a theory and then proceeds to ignore evidence that conflicts with his choosen conclusion.
  Yeah I know we're only human.

  Please don't make it look like I don't beleive Science, or Scientist as a whole, by the little change to the plural instead of singular sense of the word Scientist.
  I beleive science, I beleive scientist.
  I don't always accept their theories, but I do beleive the facts(not theories) they have uncovered. I would be silly not to.

  As to theories well they are educated guesses and that is all.
  These educated guesses can easily carry personal predudice since they are guesses waiting to be proved wrong by facts.
  As you can see by the above quote I didn't say "ignores facts" I said "ignores evidence" a subtle difference but important.
  By say passing off a theory as an established fact is one such ignoring evidence.
  Here are a few examples of what I meant:
  What about the most common equation known to man: 0=0 or 0+0=0 or nothing from nothing is nothing.
  The theory of a singularity with no God as creator is the same as saying 0=1 or from nothing came something.

  I never ment to say you personally said anything negative about my person, and I appologize to you personally if I gave that impression I'm sorry for that.

  If someone lived a trillion X longer than you, and had a billion X more reasoning ability would he come to the same conclusions as you?
• 

  Abaddon

  D wiltshire

  I am rather flabbergasted that you could find an apology in my last post. I pointed out that if you thought I was being rude, you were wrong. No apology there. I did say that I was sorry if you thought I was haughty; again, no apology as I have nothing to apologise for, I was just sorry that we obviously had misconceptions about each other. But if it makes you happy, I’m more than glad to move on.

  You say ‘I hope you enjoyed our little sparring’. How can I have enjoyed it when you fail to engage in the debate?

  This is the entire point people have been trying to make to you. What you think are clever questions and good answers are not. You have some knowledge, but the fact you ‘bait and switch’, never actually answering the responses to you properly, means it is impossible to have an enjoyable debate with you.

  You bait and switch for one of two reasons. You might not want to engage in a debate, and just want attention (thus my suspicions over you being a troll). I hope not, but can you see why I have suspicions?

  The other reason behind your actions might be that you get answers to your questions you don’t properly understand or think are ‘far out assumptions’ (because of lack of knowledge). At the same time these answers challenge your core beliefs. You don’t like that, it makes you feel insecure to know that not only did the Borg lie about god, but that god might be a lie.

  So, rather than actually staying on that topic until it is fully discussed, you jump topics. You don’t like having your core beliefs challenged but cannot really engage in a meaningful debate about the science topics you raise, yet wish to convince yourself of your core belief’s rightness, so cannot stay on a topic and admit real lack of knowledge.

  I touched on this in my last post to you, and as with many points made by several people, you just ignored on it.

  I think you are being a little two faced doubting the sincerity of thousands of scientists. Why? Because you admit yourself you would rather think there was a god, but at the same time kid yourself that you are being fair and objective in your analysis of facts.

  You are not. Anything that attacks your core beliefs is put under far greater scrutiny than things that conform to your core beliefs. Now, to an extent that is human, but I think you are not even allowing yourself to be remotely fair.

  I don’t blame you questioning anything. But don’t pretend to be objective and interested in science if you already know the answer you want; it makes you look silly. Example;

  What about the most common equation known to man: 0=0 or 0+0=0 or nothing from nothing is nothing. The theory of a singularity with no God as creator is the same as saying 0=1 or from nothing came something.

  Hasn’t it occurred to you that the pre-existence of god is the assumption that something always existed or came from the nothing? You are criticising people for doing what YOU do.

  So, let’s put the boot on the other foot.

  What proof is there of the theory of god? For all your attack of scientific theories you seem to have an almost complacent acceptance of the theory of god, as you do not seem to seek the same proofs of that as you seek of scientific theories. In your answer please explain, if you are supporting the existence of a loving and concerned creator, why it is even possible to have a debate about IF there is a god and WHAT god wants.

  In a Universe with a loving concerned creator these things should not be subject to the vagaries of belief, but should be as certain as the sunrise. They are not. Why? If you support the existence of a creator who is not concerned with us, please explain what this has to do with anything.

  Keep on rocking in the free world...
• 

  D wiltshire

  Abbadon,

  Now that we have gotten away from the insults, and the casting of aspersions, perhaps we can have a meaningful adult conversation and avoid useing weak misdirecting of attention to personalities.

  You make a good point:
  

  I think you are being a little two faced doubting the sincerity of thousands of scientists. Why? Because you admit yourself you would rather think there was a god, but at the same time kid yourself that you are being fair and objective in your analysis of facts.

  Yes I readily admit that I'd rather beleive there is a god. Can you admit that you rather beleive there is no god?

  Next point a good one too:
  

  Hasn’t it occurred to you that the pre-existence of god is the assumption that something always existed or came from the nothing? You are criticising people for doing what YOU do.

  So, let’s put the boot on the other foot.

  This is so true of both, the atheist and beleiver, both sides have the very same weakness. I'm glad you agree the shoe need to be put on the other foot so if we agree then we have both our shoes on.(Look ma no CAPS).(SORRY).

  I think this too is a fair queston:
  

  What proof is there of the theory of god? For all your attack of scientific theories you seem to have an almost complacent acceptance of the theory of god, as you do not seem to seek the same proofs of that as you seek of scientific theories.

  I'm not a 100% beleiver in god, more like 99 to 95% depending on what I'm thinking of at the time. I can only try to be fair in my deductions just like you, but realistically,.. well we are both in the same boat don't you agree?

  Now this is a gem:
  

  In your answer please explain, if you are supporting the existence of a loving and concerned creator, why it is even possible to have a debate about IF there is a god and WHAT god wants.
  What proof is there of the theory of god? For all your attack of scientific theories you seem to have an almost complacent acceptance of the theory of god, as you do not seem to seek the same proofs of that as you seek of scientific theories. In your answer please explain, if you are supporting the existence of a loving and concerned creator, why it is even possible to have a debate about IF there is a god and WHAT god wants.

  In a Universe with a loving concerned creator these things should not be subject to the vagaries of belief, but should be as certain as the sunrise. They are not. Why? If you support the existence of a creator who is not concerned with us, please explain what this has to do with anything.

  To be honest Ab, that's one that stumps me, I have heard many an explaination for the reason of God's letting bad things happen to good people, and God being distant from the human race, I can't say that I found the answer that I feel 100% sure of.
  But I fall back I my old stand-by: God's reasons may be not that easily understood by a 50 year old man.
  Yes you have touched on a sore spot.
  Still there are so many things that make sense if you beleive in God.
  DNA, reproduction, human thought, beauty, humor, E=MC2, laws that seem to govern the whole physical universe(what power enforces them), the eco-system, complexity of order in the universe, etc...

  I just can't dismiss these things as coming from nothing, because deep down I know the most basic truth "nothing from nothing" and "something from something"

  Yes I know the question of: "where did God come from?"
  And the standard answer: "God had no origination or begining."
  A question that has no satifactory answer for the unbeleiver and also leaves the beleiver mystified.

  Yet we have to be honest and say the atheist has as many or more unsatisfying answers, with no appearent answers comming forth.

  Abbadon, I'm not a scientist, I don't know if you are, but I'm sure you will agree that there are many scientist who beleive in evolution and God at the same time. So I don't think we can use the argument that stupid people or people with little education beleive in God.

  If someone lived a trillion X longer than you, and had a billion X more reasoning ability would he come to the same conclusions as you?
• 

  Julie

  D. Wiltshire said:

  :Yet we have to be honest and say the atheist has as many or more unsatisfying answers, with no appearent answers comming forth.

  I don't know about that DW. I happen to see earlier in this thread where Abaddon gave you lots of answers. You know, the ones that answered questions you asked? The ones you didn't even address? They are apparently the ones you refer to here. I think they were the ones you were quick to assume Abaddon didn't have either.

  I must compliment you though, I thought this was a nice touch:

  :Now that we have gotten away from the insults, and the casting of aspersions, perhaps we can have a meaningful adult conversation and avoid useing weak misdirecting of attention to personalities.

  No points for originality though, sorry.

  Your "reasoning" throughout your posts reminds me of someone else I know. Interesting.

  Julie
• 

  Abaddon

  Hi Julie! Abaddon Towers in Tilburg, The Netherlands, would be graced by your presence.

  D wiltshire;

  8-)

  I think we both probably prefer it this way; it's more constructive.

  At the end, yes, something, be it the stuff of the big bang or god, comes from nothing. Although the theories that show the Universe, or at least A Universe was inevitable are facsinating, I am not one of the few tens of thousands of people who actually understand the maths. And I still think it's something from nothing, as if there was something that was nothing there was still something.

  Physics and good pot are quite simliar.

  That, as we both seem to realise means that we are both screwed.

  So, having dealt with the Evolution vs. Creation debate in a reasonable fashion and equatedit a draw, we can move on to the real fun stuff. Logic.

  It doesn't make sense that god would be a question of anything as insubstancial as belief. Now, you seem to have greater faith in the ineffable than I; "if someone lived a trillion X longer than you, and had a billion X more reasoning ability" one would think they would cut us a break.

  I'm being reasonable. I've asked Satan and God for signs, and, well, I must smell or something. I was not able to sell my soul for fame and fortune, or summon dark forces, not was I able to get one sign, not even a little one like there being one more beer in the fridge than I put there, from god. I have a logical mind, which god gave me, apparently, and this logical mind essentially says "YOOOHOOO!!! COME OUT COME OUT WHERE EVER YOU ARE!!!" and gets no answer.

  Now if what we do with our lives is a big deal and shapes our future, I think god being all ineffable and hiding his existence from the world and making it look, to even a detailed look, like the Universe was just this wonderful fantastic glittering machine of coldness and maths and beauty with no god, well, I just don't think that's reasonable.

  If god really wants us to do what he knows is best for us, we wouldn't doubt his existence.

  But we can and we do, and all quite reasonably.

  So, this leaves three choices.

  1/ God exists, is an asshole, and is playing games. The devil is actaully a freedom fighter. The Bible is a propoganda tract.

  2/ Something rather removed from the concerned loving god we all like to conceptualise exists. There is a creator, but, so to speak, if you bumped into him at a party he wouldn't recognise you. Or the entire planet we live. There is a god, but we are a sideshow that might never be seen, as it is NOT about us.

  3/ There is no god.

  As 1/ and 2/ seem like Kevin Smith, Bacon what's his name, the guy who made Clerks, and Mall Rats and Chasing Amy and Dogma (love that movie) screenplays, at this time I go for 3/.

  Of course, you don't have to agree with me!! But for the record, I would love it if there were a god and if there were an afterlife. If the Universe is as I suspect it is, that means I will cease to exist at some point. Without sounding self-centred, the idea sucks. Even if option 1/ was true, it would kind of be fun, as all of the sudden you are part of a mythic battle. So, option 3/ is my least favourate, but it's the one I have to believe in at the moment.

  So, me not believing in god is against my natural inclinations.

  8-)

  Keep on rocking in the free world...
• 

  larc

  D Wiltshire,

  Since you chose to parse words rather than answer my question, let me rephrase it. Please name one, individual, singular scientist who has proposed a theory, hypothesis, or construct that willfully ignored facts and/or evidence. I am not talking about some crack pot at the local community college, who got quoted in the newspaper for some outlandish statement. I am talking about a published scientist. I don't think you understand the process of scientific publication. A scientist submits his hypothesis to a scientific journal. His manuscript is reviewed by at least three of his peers. By peers, I mean experts on the subject in question. The peer review process is very rigorous, and the kind of situation you assert, theory without support is rarely, if ever published.

  Now, somewhere I think you asserted that matter always existed. All the facts at our disposal do not support your theory, as others have pointed out. Whether there is a God or not, really has nothing to do with the question. Actualy, most theists believe that matter had a beginning, and share this belief with the atheists.
• 

  D wiltshire

  Lark,
  It is not necessary to give a specific example, the Fact that theories change in time is "EVIDENCE ENOUGH".
  "Evidence enough" is also a very subjective phrase isn't it?,..athiest and beleivers in God use it all the time.

  If someone lived a trillion X longer than you, and had a billion X more reasoning ability would he come to the same conclusions as you?
• 

  rem

  D Wiltshire shows off his/her ignorance of science even further.

  Hint: The word theory means something different in science than it does in common usage.

  rem

  "We all do no end of feeling, and we mistake it for thinking." - Mark Twain
• 

  larc

  D Willtshire,

  Let me try this one more time. The fact that new theories come along and old ones disappear, has nothing whatsoever to do with your casual and incorrect assertion about scientists or theory construction.

  New theories are accepted for one of two reasons.

  1. A new theory has more explainatory power. That is, it can explain a larger number of facts.

  2. New facts are discovered which requires a new theoretical formulation.
  You really should read a book about how science works. Several were suggested to you. Until you have a conceptual framework in your mind, snipets of scientific information won't have much meaning to you.

  I forgot to comment on one of your other statements. Somewhere you wrote that theories were no more than educated guesses. When you come to understand the amount of knowledge a theory builder must have, you should have more appreciation for their contribution. For myself, I prefer an "educated guess" to an uneducated one.
• 

  Abaddon

  D wiltshire;

  Looking forward to your reply when you have the time.

  Keep on rocking in the free world...