What do you think about Evolution debates?

by rem 27 Replies latest jw friends

  • DannyBear
    DannyBear

    DW,

    No, I think it was just the opposite. I pounced on you over nothing, and tried to let you know I was out of line.

    So no worries my friend. Thanks for mentioning.

    Danny

  • larc
    larc

    Danny,

    It seems to me as layman on this subject, it is necessary to look at some circumstantial evidence.

    1. The overwhelming majority of scientists with good credentials believe in evolution.

    2. The evidence in books and on educational television strongly support this point of view from many diverse sources of information.

    3. The evidence from many different scientific disciple converge to give support to the concept of evolution.

    4. Those who argue against evolution almost always seem less prepared and less knowledgeable of the facts.

    I don't look at it as a matter of the best carnival barker selling a pitch, but the best, well reasoned information being presented in a logical manner.

    When in doubt, do your own research, educate yourself and draw your own conclusion.

    One problem I see with the creationists, they usually start out by ridiculing evolution, then they can't back it up.

  • DannyBear
    DannyBear

    Mornin larc,

    I think I understand what you are trying to say.

    In other words, you assert that because there is an overwhelming number of 'credentialed' scientists, attesting to the fact(s) of evolution, one should be more inclined to accept it as fact. Correct?

    And you observe that a majority of those who argue or take exception, are less prepared, less knowledgeable about the subject.

    I agree that seems to be the norm.

    Here is where we have a big difference of opinion. The notion that application of academic's or should I say, sophisticated scientific jargon or very narrow observations, offered as proof that evolution is a fact(when I use the word evolution, I mean specificaly life starting from nothing, or some pin head size particle of matter)resulting in laymen, and academic alike to make the big leap...AH here it is proof beyond a shadow of doubt, does not make their leap any more or less credible than those who believe in creation. Why because even the scientists/academic's must after all is said and done, must still today, admit that they do not know for sure.

    So I think debate and argument about an absolute unkown, even debate about God's exsistance, is a waste of time. Nobody really knows for sure.

    So I guess if people like to present what they have learned from study or research fine, but I can't get interested in a subject that has no conclusion.

    Now if you want to talk about something tangible like is the bible the word of God, we have something to sink our teeth into.

    Hope I explained myself, I have early morning fog on the brain.

    Danny

  • Julie
    Julie

    Hi Rem,

    I really enjoy the evolution threads. Of course it tends to get heated but I still learn a lot from them. I appreciate the efforts that many people go to to bring us well-written, understandable, well-researched posts (I often bookmark the informative links that get posted too and read them later).

    I don't know much about evolution so do not comment a great deal in these threads. I always read them and always learn from them.

    Thanks to all who go to the trouble.

    Regards,
    Julie

  • rem
    rem

    Dannybear,

    The notion that application of academic's or should I say, sophisticated scientific jargon or very narrow observations, offered as proof that evolution is a fact(when I use the word evolution, I mean specificaly life starting from nothing, or some pin head size particle of matter)
    This is why I think Evolutionists and Creationists end up talking past one another on these threads. We have two completely different definitions of "Evolution".

    To a Creationist, Evolution includes the Big Bang and life from non-life (abiogenesis). To an evolutionist, those are separate theories that fall or stand on their own merits. To an evolutionist, evolution only means a change in genetic information over time in populations of organisms and the comon origin, or ancestry of all living things. That's basically it. No life from non-life. Abiogenesis and the Big Bang are admittedly more speculative, but evolution in and of itself is rock solid. Evolution doesn't deal with the origins of Life, but the origins of Species (Before Darwin species were thought to be immutable). It seems that many Creationists, when they learn what evolution is all about, find they do not have an issue with Evolution proper.

    I'm wondering if we need to start defining our terms before jumping into these discussions to make them more fruitful. I think this is the one of the biggest issues that gets these discussions off track.

    Evolution has nothing to do with Atheism, the Big Bang, or Life from Non-life. I think that is why the "ignorant" word gets thrown around because, for the majority of Creationists, they don't really even know what they are arguing against.

    My two cents,

    rem

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

    Persoanlly I think I like them too much... I can go a little over the top at times, but my family 'discussing' something sounds like WWIII. I just love verbal fencing though, it's fab.

    tina, PLH; *blush* thanks! I am trying to learn to take compliments. I know I can be an arrogant little sod at times (or at least type like one), but I do love telling people stuff I've learnt. I also studied to be a Secondary (High) School Science teacher, so should give credit to what I learnt there.

    DannyBear;

    So I think debate and argument about an absolute unkown, even debate about God's exsistance, is a waste of time. Nobody really knows for sure.
    Don't read the threads then!! LOL!!

    DannyB, it's your opinion that there can be no conclusion regarding the existence of god. Other people are sure they have the right conclusion. What were absolute unknowns in the 1940's (like DNA) are common knowledge now. And even if there is not an absolute answer, looking for it and talking about it is fun. But then again, I don't read threads that bore me and neither should you!

    People living in glass paradigms shouldn't throw stones...

  • DannyBear
    DannyBear

    Rem,

    Laughing at your intended or unintended pun...evolution is rock solid.

    Your points on being more specific on what aspect(s) of evolution are under discussion, would probably make the whole exercise less raucous.

    I guess my observations regarding any statements by scientists or philosopher's, as to something being written in stone, beyond a shadow of doubt, is circumscribed by historical reality.

    From year to year one can observe partial and compete reversal's of opinion by the 'intelligencia', scientists, scholars of all sorts. So putting one's unabashed confidence in the word's or idea's of these type, just because they have spent some time in research or the labratory, is not enough for me. To many prognosticator's have dipped their wicks in the mind's of these 'scientists', to assume that what they postulate is accurate at all.

    I liked the fact you were interested enough, to ask the question in this post. Thanks.

    Danny

  • mommy
    mommy

    Perfectpie,
    I wanted to let you know that I was out of the org for 8 years before I even looked at evolution. I was a very stong christian and god was my rock. I was not looking for answers, I had them all The reason I started looking into evolution is because many people I had talked to found evolution to be fact. I was only looking at it so I could prove them wrong Of course there was nothing, I could come up with that could explain the points they brought out.

    I did not base my understanding of evolution on discussions here. I did my own research, read my own books, and made up my own mind. I did look at both sides of the argument and even read creationist websites, and a creationsist book. I just cannot accept their theory of creation.

    Did I try? You bet I did! I wanted to hang on to the belief in god like a lifeline. That is why I understand why people are not willing to accept evolution as fact. Any article that is swayed towards your own perceptions of god, will be the one you agree with. It is just human nature. But if you can examine all of it, with an open mind, and reach a conclusion that may be unsettling, yet you have to agree with. I have much more respect for that person.

    You ask how we can "know" what a creationist is thinking. I know, because I was one for many years. And my personal experience and fight over this debate is the best way I know to expalin knowing both sides of the issue. Don't beleive me...haha go through the archives, I did a 180, and personally my personality has not changed a bit, just my outlook on what will happen to me when I die
    wendy

    When I leave, you will know I have been here

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit