by Anti-Christ 89 Replies latest jw friends
Warlock,
Wait, let me get this right, when you see a man who was a monkey walk out of a jungle, something that would disprove evolutionary theory, you will then take that as evidence for evolution? Riiiight!
How many times has it been pointed out to you that evolution does not happen overnight?
Hi Caedes,
LOL!
Good to have some humor in these kind of threads ;)
All the best,
Stephen
Hi AC,
If science cannot answer all the questions then that begs the question, who can?
In life, if there are questions there there are always answers, you just have to go to the right place to find them.
All the best,
Stephen
I think you misunderstood. I said science does not have all the answers, I did not say the scientific method will never find all the answers. For now we have good answer but we do not have all the answers.
" Philosophy (which is a form of science) is questions that we may never answer, religion is answer we may never question". I can not remember who said this but that is the major difference with the scientific method and religion, science is not dogmatic.
Hi AC,
So science does not have all the answers yet but it may have. However, philosophy has no answers, only the big questions.
I think you will like this :)
BBC Online - Cult - Hitchhiker's - Guide - The Ultimate Answer
And this :)
Great series with some serious underlying themes.
All the best,
Stephen
Thanks chalam I will check it out later now i must go to work.
anti-christ
" Philosophy (which is a form of science) is questions that we may never answer, religion is answer we may never question". I can not remember who said this but that is the major difference with the scientific method and religion, science is not dogmatic. |
that is a thoughtful way of putting it. And I think philosophy and science complement each other in that respect. I was thinking about the difference between saying evolution is a mechanism or that evolution is a process. Saying that evolution is a process enables us to attach more meaning to life imo and if we do this via philosophy, despite raising more questions than answers, we enrich life through strengthening thinking and imagination if of course we allow such to flourish into even what is uncertain, terrifying and unsettling.
Also with philosophy you have to train yourself to hold quite a few angles and opposite arguments in mind whereas with religious thinking one can go straight to the sublime if we were to equate religious exp with aesthetic exp for example while at the same time having the confidence to cope with it.
I think that "faith is science" is appropriate.
Do you mean faith in science? Fortunately, science does not require faith. Scientific theories can be validated and tested objectively by anyone with the inclination and ability. Faith is accepting something without direct, objective evidence; science demands and requires direct, objective evidence.
In life, if there are questions there there are always answers, you just have to go to the right place to find them.
Yes, it is satisfying when religion provides answers that no one else seems to be able to. Don't forget, pretty much all of us here used to be JW's. We had satisfying answers to everything.
The only problem is there is no way to know if those answers are correct or not.
Observable natural selection has always resulted in a loss of information in the DNA. It has not been observed to create a new structure by the addition of information to the DNA.
Quoted from the above site.
"The creationist argument that all mutations must destroy information is clearly wrong. In this case, a mutation has clearly produced new information. That is, unless you want to quibble that the detailed three-dimensional structure and composition of a protein that reacts specifically to nylon is not "information.""
Observable natural selection has always resulted in a loss of information in the DNA. It has not been observed to create a new structure by the addition of information to the DNA.
Natural selection itself does not add information. Genetic mutation is one way information can be added. Natural selection merely weeds out the bad mutations from the good/neutral mutations.
Genetic mutation adding new information/abilities has been observed. A recent example I can think of is E. coli bacteria that gained the ability to process citrate as an energy source.
So, where are all the facts? I am reading claims that it is ‘fact’ with nothing to back it up.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html#atavisms_ex2 gives a definition of vestigial organs as such: “Vestigial characters, if functional, perform relatively simple, minor, or inessential functions using structures that were clearlydesigned for other complex purposes.” Really? It is inconsistent to invoke a Designer to prove that there is no Designer. “No organism can have a vestigial structure that was not previously functional in one of its ancestors.” It really is fascinating to see these guys use examples of de-evolution, the loss of information, to prove evolution.
Frankly, it is deceitful for Dawkins and such to use cave fish to ‘prove’ evolution. They LOST the ability to see and make pigment. If you can show that they GAINED the ability to see infrared or something, then you would have something to talk about.
If evolution were true, just about every creature out there should have several nascent organs or structures. Where are the nascent structures?
Quote:
“What is more, the big bang theory can boast of no quantitative predictions that have subsequently been validated by observation. The successes claimed by the theory's supporters consist of its ability to retrospectively fit observations with a steadily increasing array of adjustable parameters, just as the old Earth-centered cosmology of Ptolemy needed layer upon layer of epicycles.”
From: http://www.cosmologystatement.org/
In other words, the supposed predictions of evolution rank right up there with Rutherford’s ‘predictions’ about the seven trumpets being JW conventions and 1914 being ‘predicted’ 30 years after the fact. I am lumping the general theory of evolution in whith the big bang.
So please:
Ø Present facts that are not ultimately dependant on an assumption
Ø Do not expect me to debate links
My point here is not to argue whether or not evolution happened, but to point out the paucity of facts to support it.
All emphesis in red were added.
