Theory of Evolution Simplified

by darth frosty 49 Replies latest jw friends

  • King Solomon
    King Solomon

    Sab said:

    I am going to have a blog out eventually that describes the purpose of those chapters in detail.

    Ahhh, just what God needs: another lowly-servant/prophet who feels the need to clarify the word of YHWH and Jesus for the World's benefit. A wanna-be modern-day Rutherford, Russell, Joseph Smith, etc. I don't suppose you recognize how insulting that kind of accusation would be to God, no?

    Well, no offense, but YOU are a little tedious to follow yourself, so let me translate your words just so WE can understand YOU. I'll start with your words above:

    "I don't really have a clue how to tap-dance out of that one, since I don't understand the science part, but I can blather on as well as the next apologist ona blog...."

  • NewChapter
    NewChapter

    If there are all these valid theories floating around which one is the most probable? That's how science comes to conclusions. "Truth with uncertainty" seems to be a tenent of the scientific method which constantly churns out new often conflictual information. Doesn't Scientific Theory essentially mean "best theory" of an array of plausible options? The options keep flooding in as new data is unearthed.

    Your point?

    Science utilizes the human trait of faith in order to progress forward.

    Stop embarrassing yourself. Stop trying to apply religious ideas to something that is not religious. Believe it or not, some things exist outside the realm of religion and ideas of faith and so forth. Educate yourself, or continue to sound ignorant of the process.

    The Disciples of Science care much for the Torah. Look at King Solomon here, trying to say that Genesis cares about photosynthesis.

    Sol cares about the Torah. Science does not. Sol does what we all do. He uses the evidence to form opinions, and he forms opinions about some things that really don't effect Science. I have done the same by concluding there is no evidence for a god. Science does not require that I do that, and does not concern itself with the supernatural. Those that take in the information will use it as they see fit.

    The evidence is not what makes me uncomfortable it's the people who take that evidence and insist that it disproves anything about God or the Torah.

    Why the f*ck should that make you uncomfortable? If you are that fragile, don't engage in the discussion. You insist that there is a god. I really don't care enough to let that make me uncomfortable. Now if you'd like to debate it, then fine. But why don't you stop telling people what conclusion they should reach with the evidence at hand. Why is that offensive? Does certainty make you uncomfortable if it disagrees with you? Too Bad Sab! Get over it. Debate is fine, but you constantly interject how others should and should not use evidence.

    People have power in a democratic society, so any kind of insistence of any particular ideal can be dangerous to society at large

    That certainly doesn't stop you or other believers, now does it?

    The ancient text's approach is to enlighten, not to simply toss out answers. Such a statement would clearly come from someone who has not really given the ancient text's and their adherents enough of a chance.

    I. Don't. Care. I can't find 2 believers that agree on anything, and I'm not interested in the debate. It is not my responsiblity to figure out which of you are saying what about it, and then to break it down 1 million times.

    I personally have used the Torah to help me in my modern life. It is a "living document" which means it is not just your average collection of words and sentences

    Perhaps not for you. It's nothing but dusty old words to me.

    Are you admitting that many on this forum are engaing in vanity when trying to discredit ancient text's validity? Is that not applying the scientific method to ancient texts for the purposes of conclusions? Do you not take part in such behavior yourself?

    And what of it? I use the evidence at hand to evaluate many things. YOU try to argue against a method that was not meant to accomodate religious or any other bias. Sounds like you'd like for the method to add a little bias to make you comfortable. Like I suggested, that's not the scientific method. Feel free to make up a different method that would give the supernatural some weight.

    So the ancient texts were written down to give us warm feelings?

    I have no idea, and it is not my concern.

    Why do you make such generalizations?

    Since I can't find 2 believers that agree on anything, other than fundamentalists and cult members, and then only in certain groups, I am left to generalize. I care not to ask a million people how they interpret it, and then address a million more points. I don't need to go that far. The particulars don't matter to me, because I dismiss the entire premise. I don't believe in alien abductions either, so why would I concern myself that some insist they are doing medical experiments on people of the earth, and others insist they suck us up into UFO's to have sex, while others insist they forcefeed us Pop Rocks and Coke? You lost me at ABDUCTION, so the rest is irrelevant. You lost me at GOD---the rest is just a bunch of people talking about something I don't believe in.

    I would say they were written down to induce cognitive dissonance and get the reader thinking about their position in the cosmos. That is not a generally good feeling, but more of an extreme anxiety and strain of the mind attempting to grow beyond what is the conscious and physical world.

    Again, good for you. You can ask your doctor for a script if your beliefs cause you too much anxiety, but this means nothing to me. Remember, you lost me at GOD.

  • sabastious
    sabastious
    Ahhh, just what God needs: another lowly-servant/prophet who feels the need to clarify the word of YHWH and Jesus for the World's benefit. A wanna-be modern-day Rutherford, Russell, Joseph Smith, etc. I don't suppose you recognize how insulting that kind of accusation would be to God, no?

    Interesting that you should bring up those men. The Torah has Noah being called "blameless among his people" and then after being spared he shows himself as someone who modern day people wouldn't consider blameless. This indicates a flawed man, but a more flawed nation that he sprung forth within. Such was the canvas of society when men like Russell, Rutherford and Smith lived. All were questioning the foundations of their environment and trying to convince other people too. In such an endeavor it seems inevitable that such sparks in society evolve into systems of pure evil. Eventually those establishments have to be torn down, but what remains is the memory of people of faith that brough momentum into the world. The truth about what they were, or were not, drove them mad and there is compassion to be felt by modern day people for the toils of those chaotic times. What are we to make of it all? Could it have been any different?

    "I don't really have a clue how to tap-dance out of that one, since I don't understand the science part, but I can blather on as well as the next apologist ona blog...."

    Apologist? The blog would be continuing the work of Figurist Movements the 17th century. Not an apology, but an expounding of a known theory. I think you should reserve judgement until you see the finished product.

    Your point?

    My point is that science serves to discover conclusions about existence. Since you said that creationism is compatible with science then where is the most probable God theory? Because if God is compatible with science then God is a valid scientific pursuit. If this is true, where is the accepted theory because I would like to look at it. The great thing about science is that it's based on peer review and scientific evidence. So, which God theory has the most evidence? And is that theory in turn accepted as the God theory? I ask because you say that science does not concern itself with God, but there are God theories that exist because lots of people have lots of theories. Why not get the best one and call that the working "God"?

    Stop embarrassing yourself. Stop trying to apply religious ideas to something that is not religious. Believe it or not, some things exist outside the realm of religion and ideas of faith and so forth. Educate yourself, or continue to sound ignorant of the process.

    I don't feel embarrassed. I am educating myself by talking with you here.

    Sol cares about the Torah. Science does not. Sol does what we all do. He uses the evidence to form opinions, and he forms opinions about some things that really don't effect Science. I have done the same by concluding there is no evidence for a god. Science does not require that I do that, and does not concern itself with the supernatural. Those that take in the information will use it as they see fit.

    The opinions are tested and the tested opinions are then called scientific theory are they not? So we test the God theories and then find the best God theory and call that scientific theory?

    Why the f*ck should that make you uncomfortable? If you are that fragile, don't engage in the discussion. You insist that there is a god. I really don't care enough to let that make me uncomfortable. Now if you'd like to debate it, then fine. But why don't you stop telling people what conclusion they should reach with the evidence at hand. Why is that offensive? Does certainty make you uncomfortable if it disagrees with you? Too Bad Sab! Get over it. Debate is fine, but you constantly interject how others should and should not use evidence.

    I get uncomfortable when opinion is presented as scientific fact. Just because something is presented as fact doesn't mean it's presented as scientific fact, or absolute fact checked by a peer review process. Until science there was only one type of fact and they were all known to be sketchy. Now we have science and we still have the scketcy facts and we have the scientific facts. This greatly increased quality of life and everyone is happy for that, but there is no scientific fact that God doesn't exist for all religious beliefs. This includes all the wild ideas that don't make sense because they were all created in a world of sketchy facts. In order to truly understand the people of that world, and what they wrote down, you would have to travel back and live with them. Because we live in a world where we look at Venus and think of a science textbook picture from the third person off in space somewhere we have a completely different perspective on existence. It's imporant to think of Venus as star for example when trying to put yourself in the shoes of the ancient world. To them it was something completely different.

    Too much do we equate our existence with theirs. Their existence was set in a different plane with a different set of morals which are albiet inferior to modern morals.

    Perhaps not for you. It's nothing but dusty old words to me.

    The Torah has influenced modern society, NC. That's a LIVING document because the things that exist among us are FROM the Torah. It's NOT just words whether you look at it from a religious or a secular point of view. It's literally in our world. Some would say that many seek to destroy it as if it were a king whos destruction is long overdue indicating a sovereignty over a group of people. It's a "living document."

    Since I can't find 2 believers that agree on anything

    Why does it all have to fit in a neat little package for you? You have been exposed to many believers who believe extremely similar in fundamental ways.

    Anyway, I have to leave for the day. I am not overly uncomfortable, NC, I was just using a word that you used in a response. The idea that evolution can replace the idea of God is what worries me as it does many people. Anyway, I always enjoy your replies. I always know that I am going to get a real response from you and I want to thank you for that.

    -Sab

  • NewChapter
    NewChapter

    Since you said that creationism is compatible with science then where is the most probable God theory?

    Theistic Evolution (not creationism as most people understand it) is compatible with science. God is not compatible or incompatible with science, because it is not something that science studies because it is supernatural and unobservable. The reason Theistic Evolution is compatible is simply because the notion accepts everything that science has to say on the matter of evolution, without involving a god in any way. Their concept is that perhaps a god was involved at some point, but well before evolution---which can be explained by natural means with no need to invoke the supernatural. Perhaps they think that a god was responsible with the big bang or point of origin---but that is not an evolutionary issue. Perhaps they believe that a god provided some kind of spark---but again---not an evolutionary issue. Those other things fall under other sciences. So I guess a more accurate statement is that Theistic Evolution is compatible with EVOLUTION, not necessarily all science. I would have to investigate it further to come to any conclusion there. Creationism--Intelligent Design--that kind of thing is not compatible with Evolution in any way.

    The opinions are tested and the tested opinions are then called scientific theory are they not?

    No. Scientists observe the natural world and make a guess about something they see. This is called a hypothesis. Let's make one up. Sometimes goats are born one color, and sometimes they are spotted. That's the observation. The guess is that you can cause a goat to be born spotted by carving spots in a stick and waving the stick at pregnant goats. That's the hypothesis. Now to test it! Simply enough. Get a stick, carve out some spots and start shaking. Then watch and observe. It works! so it must be true. Not so fast. We must be able to repeat it over and over with the exact same results. So keep shaking. If just one goat is born a solid color, after it's pregnant mother had a stick waved at it, then the hypothesis has been falsified. The poor little bugger doesn't even get to become a theory. But if the hypothesis holds up---well then it becomes stronger and graduates to theory! Where it will continue to be tested and challenged.

    We can use similar logic and so forth when looking at dusty manuscripts, but this isn't necessarily the scientific method. We may be using logic and critical thinking and a similar attitude, but what is science to test about the Torah? Science can test some of the things written in the Torah---the literal creation account---waving sticks etc, but beyond that, most of it likely falls under different disciplines. Religion is one of them. Perhaps history. Perhaps Archeology, which will use some scientific methods, but also other methods. It will not be testing if it is from God so much as testing out the culture that produced it.

    I get uncomfortable when opinion is presented as scientific fact.

    Yeah, well I get itchy when scientific fact is presented as opinion. You'll just have to deal with it like I do.

    Until science there was only one type of fact and they were all known to be sketchy.

    Where do you come up with this stuff. FACTS are NOT sketchy, and they have been with us forever. If they were SKETCHY they would not be facts.

    The Torah has influenced modern society, NC. That's a LIVING document because the things that exist among us are FROM the Torah. It's NOT just words whether you look at it from a religious or a secular point of view. It's literally in our world. Some would say that many seek to destroy it as if it were a king whos destruction is long overdue indicating a sovereignty over a group of people. It's a "living document."

    See this is a perfect example where an opinion is presented as fact. I'm itching all ready.

    Why does it all have to fit in a neat little package for you? You have been exposed to many believers who believe extremely similar in fundamental ways.

    Again, I don't care what kind of package it fits in. It's not my concern. I have rejected the wrapping---God. Argue amongst yourselves about god, fairies, unicorns, dragons, leprechauns, aliens, angels, demons, ancient writings, elven runes, I really don't care. I choose instead to discuss scientific theories with Billy.

  • King Solomon
    King Solomon

    Sab probably spittled a little bit when he said:

    The Torah has Noah being called "blameless among his people" and then after being spared he shows himself as someone who modern day people wouldn't consider blameless. This indicates a flawed man, but a more flawed nation that he sprung forth within.

    Uh, then Obvious Guy has to wonder why a Perfect YHWH carried out "Armageddon, Take One", but managed to screw it up by not doing a better job of character assessment on Noah and his family? You'd think god SHOULD be able to fix a problem (which he described as "evil thoughts in the hearts of men" in Gen 8:21) by carefully reading their hearts, but he apparently screwed up the attempted fix, for as you point out, Noah was flawed afterwards, and just a page later you have Sodom and Gomorrah going on.... Millions wiped out, and for what again? If that's the way things go when God carries out Armageddons, I wouldn't be wanting to survive the JW version, LOL!

    My point is that science serves to discover conclusions about existence. Since you said that creationism is compatible with science....

    Wha? Being that I'm a hard-core atheist, I never said anything like that. Maybe you're talking about someone else (NC).

    Enough tap-dancing, Sab, I need a laugh:

    Tell me how God could create plants a day before he made the Sun.

    Heck, give us a preview of this Figurist Movement thing from the 17th century since that will explain it all....

    REMEMBER: we got to this point in the thread by YOU stating that theism is compatible with science.

    I'm saying they're NOT, as supernatural explanations are as useless to science as teats on a bull. Science and the Bible quickly part ways in Genesis 1. If you feel you can bridge the gap, lay it on us.

    Sab said:

    Since you said that creationism is compatible with science then where is the most probable God theory?

    Ohhh, that's not promising, as Sab doesn't even understand what the word 'theory' means in science, so there's an instant lowerer of expectations....

    It's (the Torah) literally in our world.

    Ohhh, someone also doesn't know what 'literally' means...

  • Finkelstein
    Finkelstein

    Does not the suggestion that god purposely time scaled his creations equally ( a day ), make notice that the creation story

    is nothing but bullshit mythology.

    And on the 6th day he created Man and he called man idiot.

    Day one - Heavens and earth are created. "Let there be light." Day and Night.
    Day two - Atmospheric waters separated from earth waters.
    Day three - Land appears separating the seas. Vegetation is made.
    Day four - Sun, moon, stars are made.
    Day five - Sea life and birds are made.
    Day six - Land animals, creeping things, and man (male and female) are made.

  • Finkelstein
    Finkelstein

    Adding to the fact that after all of what he created he needed rest ( nappy time )

    Where is the logic that a spirit being gets tired and needs to rest.

    I guess god on the seventh day sat in his Barca lounger and watched some tele .

  • King Solomon
    King Solomon

    Yeah, the Genesis creation narrative is based on much older creation myths (Mesopotamian/Egyptian/Babylonian/Sumerian, e.g. Epic of Gilgamesh), and the bit about separating light from darkness seems derived from the Enuma Elish.

    More info:

    http://www.exitmundi.nl/bible/web-content/g_creation.html

    Panbabylonianism:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panbabylonism

    Finkelstein, creating stuff is hard work: it's really harddddd..... God needed a Sabbath day!

  • Finkelstein
    Finkelstein

    Finkelstein, creating stuff is hard work: it's really harddddd.....

    So god created all things in the Universe with his own hands ???

    The other bit that always puzzled me is why would god look like a man with legs, arms, hands and feet.

    as the bible says god created man out of his own image. What ?

    I suppose god is up in heaven walking around, doing the occasional cross-word puzzle.

  • snare&racket
    snare&racket

    Genesis has no connection to the findings of modern science.

    Chronology and Length of time: The bible gets the order for the formation of the universe and everything on earth not only SPECIFICALLY in the wrong order but also by any figuritive reckoning in a wrong time scale.

    Adam and Eve: The two creation accounts contradict each other WITHOUT ARGUMENT. Not only is this the case, the order of animal introduction and the claimed naming of the animals is all nonsense and untrue, despite once believed to be the exact accounting of events. Adam and Eve cold not have existed. The formation of man from clay is from Sumeria and ignores the long ancient ancestors of man. Skin is not made of dust or clay as some religions claim and no, men do not have one less rib than women. It is all incorrect. Even the idea of Eden is wrong. Adam would have to be redesigned and rebuilt after the formation of Eve. The animals, had they lived peacefully together, would require complete redesign from the DNA up, once allowed to kill and eat each other. The changes would require a complete renewed creation of animals. This is NOT evidenced in any scientific findings.

    Eden: the bible specifies where Adam and Eve are, somwhere near modern day Iraq = wrong, humans originated in africa.

    The Bible specifically dates Adam at approx 6000 years ago. Yo can pretend that the geneology presented is figuritive, but only you believe that. We have civilisations older than this, cities, languages, jewelry, clothing, farming equipment.... nevermind human remains over 100 thousand years old.

    The Genesis account is not an old one. It is a recent combination of lots of older beliefs. To say that it has any connection to science is pure fiction. It would be laugable, only that someone may read your words and believe you.

    Where are the dinosaurs, yeah the world dominators that lived for 150 million years !!!!!!!!!!! 60 million years ago !!!!! What a coincidence that we have only known about dinosaurs for 150 yrs and there is no word in Genesis about them..... funny that . ?

    Where are the walking, communicating, tool making, home abiding, community based Neanderthals? Homo Erectus? and many more.... where are they in the bible?

    Take your bible to the natural history museum and see if you can find verses to explain ANYTHING you find.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit