Non-evidence reasons why people embrace Evolution.

by hooberus 282 Replies latest jw friends

  • thetrueone

    No there's no evidence of evolution !

    this video is quite informative to the contrary

  • Gerard

    AGuest, I sincerely apologize for atacking you more than your logic.



  • AGuest

    (Smile) Thank you, dear Gerard (again, peace to you!) and apology totally accepted. It's confusing... given what some say about religious folk when they can't answer... but I'm not offended. Just... a bit puzzled. Also, please let me correct a response to dear Qcmbr:

    I could not believe in God and Christ and still [the] evidence wouldn't prove that man evolved from another species, lower life form, or common ancestor with all other living things."

    And that really was my entire point.

    Again, peace to you all and thank you for "tolerating" me.

    A slave of Christ,


  • Mad Dawg
    Mad Dawg

    MD: I suspect you was drunk last night, or just cant control your temper,

    Drunk? Temper? I am not angry about anything. I meant it when I said that I have been laughing at you all the way.

    So right from the onset i have introduced two measures of information/complexity from the general litterature, but i am clearly not saying one of those is used in the article: I am asking hooberus if one of those or a 3rd unknown is used.

    Indeed, you did. You were slamming the author for not specifying which of the three he was using. Then you went on without specifying which of the three you were using.

    In the very next post i am SUPPOSED to have:

    MD: "you used the word "information" in a way that suggested it was the same as what the author was using"

    In reality, what i wrote in THAT VERY POST was:

    Bohm: "...the central term in the article [information] remain undefined ... and evolution CAN create information, it is observed in the laboratory"

    Whether you intended to or not, your sentence structure - particularly your use of the word "and" - indicates that the meaning of information is the same in both instances. It is one of those nuances of the English language.

    In reality, what you want whoever you write this to to believe is that when i critisize an article for not defining its central term, I AM REALLY trying to say: "i know how the author define his central term in the article and I can make a positive claim about it".

    Wrong, wrong, wrong. Please quote where I believe you know what the author meant. What I have repeatedly said is that you criticize the author for something you turned around and did yourself.

    No, but when I in the previous post introduced two scientific measures of information, it should be obvious that i was referring to those.

    Oh? Well, which one? Or does it fall under "what"? Regardless, why didn't you simply clarify it as soon as it was pointed out that it wasn't clear?

    Your post would be more accurate if you said: "You did not define what you mean by evolution once more so i didnt have to arse myself to scroll up and re-read it, or have to use my short-term memory",

    Your posts would be more accurate if you were to say: "I was too lazy to define the term and my ego is so bloated that I can't admit that it wasn't clear."

    Notice that its still you who bicker over definitions.

    And you are still trying to dodge the fact that your post wasn't clear. As for bickering over definitions, how does it feel to be on the receiving end?

    Since you are so fond of asking me questions, let me ask you a couple. I hope you will answer them one at a time with clarity like you demanded of me:

    No problem.

    • did i or did i not introduce two measures of information, kolmogorov complexity and entropy, in my very first post on this thread? (page 2 - quoted above).

    Yes, you did. I have not disputed that.

    • did i or did i not state the author do not define his terms?

    Yes, you did. I have not disputed that either.

    • Is it logical to say, at the same time, "the central term in the article [information] is not defined" AND make positive statements about that term?

    No, it is not logical. Which is why I fell on the floor laughing when you did it.

    • In that case, is it not more logical to assume i use one (or both) of the measures of information I INTRODUCED MYSELF rather than a measure in an article i claim is ill-defined?

    Why should I have to assume anything? Why didn't you simply clarify it when I pointed out that it was unclear? That would have saved us both a lot of typing. That I would have to "assume" something means that it was not clear.

    • How much do you have to drink last night?

    I have had nothing to drink in the past several weeks.

    • How about the following part of my last post, was the last line prophetic or are you going to give me an appolegy?

    I am not going to start such a thread, but not for the reasons you believe. On the face of it, your "bet" is stupid.

    · If/when I give an apology, it is because I sincerely wish to offer one, not because of a bet or because my mommy told me to.

    · I do not want an apology from you. You do not owe one.

    · I don't want you off this board. It is too much fun watching you squirm because the standards you apply to others have been applied to you.

    · If you want a bet, put up something of value to me. To me, what you put up has less value than a bucket of chicken manure.

    If you have more questions, let me know.

  • thetrueone

    As the video I posted shows, there's much to learn and consume in making a confident confirming decision

    whether everything on in earth was created quickly by a great unknown spiritual force or was everything created

    very slowly in a gradual evolving way. If self proclaiming god creationist were to take in all of the acquired sciences

    and knowledge based on factual evidence, I'm sure most would honestly conclude that evolution is real and its a part

    of physical nature which we are selfs are a part of..

  • Mad Dawg
    Mad Dawg

    The video shows a bunch of observations. The conclusions one draws depends on the axioms that they start with.

  • Satanus

    "The conclusions one draws depends on the axioms that they start with. "

    Exactly. A person without prejudice would very likely be led by the evidence towards an evolutionary process. Afterall, it was from christians that it sprang, starting w darwin. As the evidence mounted, more and more christian scientists felt compelled to recant, until today, when it's practically the norm.


  • Mad Dawg
    Mad Dawg

    Darwin was a Christian? Evolution was common in his time. His Grandfather wrote a book on it, Zoonomia.

    How do you account for evolutionists that become creationists? I suspect that they examined the evidence and found the evolutionary conclusions less than compelling.

  • Satanus

    " Darwin's religious beliefs evolved over the course of his lifetime. In Origin of Species, published in 1859, Charles Darwin identified himself as a believer in Christianity. However, by the time he had written his Autobiography, Darwin had become a professed agnostic," -

    So, when he developed his version of evolution theory, and wrote the book, he was christian.


  • thetrueone

    The video shows a bunch of observations. The conclusions one draws depends on the axioms that they start with.

    So then what your saying then is all the students and professors who are using and studying these sciences throughout the world

    were all devout atheists before attending any of these courses........interesting

    Thanks for this enlightenment

    I must say you sure are a wise Dawg your not mad at all

Share this