Evidence for evolution, Installment 5: Lake Tanganyika, etc

by seattleniceguy 109 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  El blanko

  I don't believe we've been to the moon

  I believe we have the capability to go to the moon, with ease... and beyond.

  I am assuming you are challenging 1969 as the first moon landing?
• 

  AlanF

  Qcmbr said:

  : Actually - I don't believe we've been to the moon

  After reading your previous comments on this thread, I'm not surprised.

  You probably also believe that UFOs are alien spacecraft, crop circles are messages from little green men, etc etc etc.

  It amazes me that the people who disbelieve evolution are nearly always of the same sort as those on this thread. If you don't know what I mean by that, then there's no point in my attempting to enlighten you.

  AlanF
• 

  GetBusyLiving

  This is a GREAT series SNG, thanks again man.

  GBL
• 

  Abaddon

  tijmko

  Do you mean where I ask you "Can you be something more than an empty vessel or a clashing cymbal?

  I'm glad you like me doing it; If I was talking to a Muslim creationist I'd use the Qu'ran. Or the Book of Mormon to a Mormon, etc..

  But that is just asking you a question (in a way which would attract your attention) to try and elicit some substance to your posts rather than the repetative unsupported claims you've thus far made in this thread. I'm glad it at least got your attention; still no substance to your posts though.

  Also, I'm not using the Bible to "back-up" my arguement in any favorable way for the Bible. If you're going to get touchy when you feel I misrepresent what you say, I'd like you to show the same consideration to me. Yeah, I'd quote the Bible to show that at the point the derived chronology says there was a "Global Flood", pyramids stood in Egypt and trees in California.

  I normally quote the Bible to show how wrong it is.

  Now tijmko I will be interested to see it you can seperate your beliefs, in terms of how reliable they are, from our hypothetical stone-age shamen with a bone through his nose.

  He will tell you he is right too, just as you TELL us you are right. His unsupported verbal assurances don't mean he is right, just as your unsupported verbal assurances don't mean you are right.

  Now, if you're happy to say 'I am a presuppostionalist, I know there is a god, I know that he made the world like this, and you're not going to convince me of anything else', fine, good luck to you. If you're happy with evading questions you can't answer and are so confident in your rightness you'll maybe not bother answering at all, fine; enjoy your life.

  If instead you want to compare your beliefs against reality and have a discussion, it'll be lovely to hear more from you, just stop telling us you're right and actually present evidence as though in a court of law to support your claims.
• 

  Qcmbr

  AlanF - I love the fact that you feel confident enough to feel that I need enlightening. That's the same dogmatic approach that relions use. As for crop circles I'm fairly certain that's a couple of old bloakes at night but then again....
  
  All I'm trying to say is not one of us has the complete monopoly on truth and in our own world view we are right - we all filter the information we get through our own spectacles and that becomes our reality. I have a couple of friends who regularly dismiss anything outside their worldview with words such as b**llocks and cr*p - part of the human condition I suppose - non acceptance of the fact that you might be wrong.
  
  In my worldview God lives, Jesus lives, we didn't go to the moon, evolution describes many observable processes but still has many unanswered questions, stilton is the most disgusting cheese and Sunderland FC are my favourite football team.
  
  I won't insult your worldview by suggesting you should support Sunderland because really they are a bit pants..
• 

  SeymourButts

  But, you also believe Native Americans are Lamanites......of Jewish descent...and aren't they supposed to turn white if they convert to Mormonism The garden of eden is in Missouri Hill of Cumorah need to know secret keywords and how to pass tokens to get into heaven reformed egyptian golden plates Smith used a seer stone etc......... You wouldn't admit to evolution even if you believed it....you can't. In McConkie's address entitled "The Seven Deadly Heresies" he listed as "Heresy Two" the "false and devilish" notion advanced by "those who say that revealed religion and organic evolution can be harmonized. Such claims, McConkie said, did not represent "true science" but, rather, "the false religions of the dark ages . . . some of which have crept in among us." You, by Mormon standards, would be guilty of heresy if you expressed any belief in evolution. Sounds a little more like intellectual intimidation to me.
• 

  Abaddon

  Qcmbr

  At the end of the day we really don't have many facts at our fingertips - we have lots of evidences for things but still no absolute knowledge.

  No? Okay, take tree rings. They are a reliable way of dating a tree (in most species). This means you can date a live tree quite accurately. There are trees alive today which would have HAD to have been standing when the Bible says there was a global flood. There are no geological proofs for the Global Flood ever happening.

  Now, if that isn't absolute knowledge there was no global flood, let alone one as described in the Bible, I think your standards of absolute knowledge are unreasonable.

  There are loads of things we have what can reasonably be defined as 'absolute knowledge'.

  Somethings we have no absolute proof for, but have a lack of any other reasonable explanation. The fossil record, for example, is far more thorough than you make out. It shows that organisms change over time. This is a fact; the hows and whys are open to debate, but the facts show it really does happen.

  1/ We have only been studying data for a few years in relation to the process we are trying to explain (we have tiny fragments of the whole picture - I read once that all the fossils ever found would only cover a few hundred square feet)

  Learn more about the fossil record before parroting statements. This is like me saying some comment about engine tuning I read somewhere, with no idea whether the comment was true, and no real knowledge of engine tuning, just to impress people who were talking about engine tuning. Not big, not clever.

  2/ We can never go back in time to say with any finality what actually happened so even with evidence we are still making a judgment based upon current evidence.

  You seem to be setting up, by your argument, a situation where you can believe what the hell you like but never have to back it up on account that when challanged about anything you'll just make-out that nothing is certain.

  You are perfectly free to do that, it's okay. Do not expect people to think it is big and clever though. Anyone, rather than defending what they believe, can instead try and undermine the determinablity of everything. It's just an evasive technique, it doesn't have substance, people use it when they can't answer or don't want to answer a question. But if you're happy that way, good for you.

  3/ Creationists and anti creationists are pushing a religious agenda - for or against God and evolutionary processes somehow become a proof for or against God -

  And that is a big fat straw man argument. God and evolution can both happen.

  Creationists are typically interested in forcing their own version of god into the classroom and everyday life. This is why they tend towards literalistic interpretations; if they can prove the Bible is right in this area, they could then push for other areas of life to be moved to conformity with Biblical standards - as they interpret them of course.

  This is why they make the mistake of linking god and evolution; they are trying to defend a very literalistic specific belief in god and as they are aware that that literalistic specific belief in god IS contradicted by science, they see evolution as challenging belief in god as they see it from their interpretation of the Bible.

  Indeed, Evolution challenges a literalistic interpretation of the creation account in the Bible and the god that did it.

  However, once you allow the Genesis account, or indeed ANY religous myth regarding creation to be seen as a metaphor or allegory, there is no conflict between evolution and god.

  It is only primative men who were unaware of evolution that thought god made the world like a child makes silly-putty animals. Less primative men who don't want to force a specific faith are quite aware that god could have used the processes we see evidence for as the mechanism for their creative process.

  Of course, if you accept the start of the Bible is an allegory, and that the account as we read it was how men conceived it happening, not anything literal at all, then you can no longer assert certain things are wrong or right just because the Bible says it. This is counter to the goals of fundamental religionists. Creationism is a stalking horse for religious totalitarians. Creationists aren't campaigning to have different religious faiths creation myths taught alongside science. They just want theirs taught.

  4/ Evolution cannot be proved because we cannot recreate the exact conditions on earth and then start another experiment for several billion years to see the outcome. This is a one shot wonder and we are inside the experiment.

  If you realised evolution refered to the FACT that the fossil record shows change over time in organisms, you would not say it could not be proved. Evolution is also a term applied to the theory of HOW this came to be, but you seem to have made your mind up abpout evolution before knowing what it is. Isn't that arrogant?

  I don't believe we've been to the moon,

  Are you joking? If not, please support that statement. If it is that dumb old urban myth, there are plenty of websites that show how the riculous and muddled claims made regarding the Apollo landings can be utterly disproved. I suggest you look at them before presenting the urban myth to us as a fact.

  there is strong evidence that the plays of Shakespeare were written by Mr Bacon

  Great. I would LOVE to see this 'strong evidence'. Is it as strong as the evidence it was Queen Elizabeth who wrote the plays? Or as strong as the evidence that Marlow wrote the plays?

  In my worldview God lives, Jesus lives,

  Don't you think it is massively arrogant for you to assume the religious tradition you were born into is the right one? Other people believe different things just as fervantly as you do. Are they wrong? Why are you so insistant that your narrow and exclusive set of beliefs is right? The faith-based validation other religionists use for determining whether they believe something has exactly the same validity no matter who is applying it and to what!

  Please realise making extraordinary claims that run against recorded history or scientific knowledge is only clever and intersting if you can back up those extraordinary claims. If you cannot it makes you look like an easily fooled fantasist. I

  evolution describes many observable processes but still has many unanswered questions,

  Like what? Vaugeness isn't clever, it is vaugeness. If you know enough to make that statement without it just being parroting, then let us know what you mean.

  stilton is the most disgusting cheese and Sunderland FC are my favourite football team.

  Yeah, and the fact you link subjective opinions (which further illustrate your poor judgement ) to topics some objecive determination can be reached on is illuminating.

  The main problem, always in these discussions, is that people using two entirely different paradigms for determining the nature of reality will disagree, by definiton.
• 

  tijkmo

  when i first posted i forgot to put a question mark at the end of my post...but with your intelligence i'm surprised you didnt read one anyway..

  my faith in a god of justice has been shattered...my belief in a god at all is up for grabs...as such i am susceptable to whatever contrary theories to what i have believed for so long that anyone has to offer.

  because of the conspiritorial way i was dealt with by an organization i trusted then i am fighting not to see conspiracies in everything..moon landings,crop /ice circles,princess di's death,jfk,titanic

  so you missed an opportunity there abaddon buddy...cos if you hadnt called me childish..misquoted me..or implied i was an ignoramus because i dont have all the answers then i woulda listened to you.(at least midget-sasquatch conceded that i had a point)..as it is i think that anyone who has to resort to what you did is not worth listening to anyway..my loss... cest la vie

  you are so intelligent you failed to realise that my comment (and i quote) "still doesnt explain kangaroos though" was questioning MY beliefs not yours

  tijkmo of the not so intelligent he lacks common sense class
• 

  LittleToe

  SNG:
  Nice thread!
  I've been following them sporadically.

  Something that so often get's lost sight of, on such threads, is that evolution and theism are not mutually exclusive.
  I have no difficulty believing in a creator and accepting evolution as a fact. The evidence point to the later, and doesn't discount the former.

  As for Aussieland, I think the most extraordinary example of inexplicable "nature" is the duck-billed platypus.
• 

  Abaddon

  tijkmo

  when i first posted i forgot to put a question mark at the end of my post...but with your intelligence i'm surprised you didnt read one anyway.

  That is so vauge I don't even know what bit you are talking about. Nice to see you excuse your mistakes and make them my fault. Big of you.

  my faith in a god of justice has been shattered...

  That doesn't make you special. That makes you one of "us". Get over yourself man.

  my belief in a god at all is up for grabs...

  You previously said;

  i believe in a creator...as such EVERYTHING is explainable either by something he did or by something he did not do

  I'd really appreciate it if you would keep a track of your own opinions. Or are you saying that your opinion has shifted during this conversation?

  as such i am susceptable to whatever contrary theories to what i have believed for so long that anyone has to offer.

  Is that why you have a strong opinion on a subject it is plain you have a lot of studying to do on? I don't normally see people with stong opinions about subjects they don't know a lot about as being susceptable to anything. They've already decided they know enough to reach a conclusion.

  I see you putting the responsibility on being informed on other people. Didn't you get enough of being spoon-fed as a Witness? Why can't you undertake an independent program of study? It's not difficult.

  because of the conspiritorial way i was dealt with by an organization i trusted then i am fighting not to see conspiracies in everything..moon landings,crop /ice circles,princess di's death,jfk,titanic

  And what are you doing to solve this problem? Just suffering and complaining? Or actually learning how to read an argument deeply, to critically analyse what people say. Don't you realise many of us were equivalently susceptable to bullshit when we first left the Dubbies? The difference is most people didn't just wallow. They seek change, and just like the song says, 'the movement you need is on your shoulder'.

  so you missed an opportunity there abaddon buddy...cos if you hadnt called me childish..misquoted me..

  You come on this thread asserting that a set of beliefs are correct, and make no attempt to prove your claims or even substansiate your vauge comments about evolution. You might not like my opinion of this behaviour as childish, but I don't see you showing me that it is adult behaviour to insist you are right whilst simultaneously displaying you are ill-informed about the topic at hand.

  As for your allegations of a misquote, I clarified this. If you aren't prepared to move on from that, fine, that's all I need to know - you blame me for not interpreting YOUR mistakes correctly, and at the same time make no allowance for other's mistakes.

  or implied i was an ignoramus because i dont have all the answers

  I implied you were ignorant of the details of evolution. You are. And where did I use the word ignoramous or imply you as a person were ignorant? Saying someone is ignorant of a subject it different to saying they are ignorant as a person. But I suppose given the attitude you display above it will be okay for YOU to misquote me.

  then i woulda listened to you.

  Quite frankly, as you use exactly the same evasive techniques as the run-of-the-mill Creationists I have had discussions with in the past, to have me believe you are not acting in the same way (even if you are unaware of it) would require evidence that you are different to that.

  You were asked fifteeen questions by me, all of which would help do what you claim you want to do. .

  If you really wanted to learn a fit of pique wouldn't keep you from responding to those questions.

  you are so intelligent you failed to realise that my comment (and i quote) "still doesnt explain kangaroos though" was questioning MY beliefs not yours

  What is this "you are so intelligent" crap. You really sound like someone with a chip on their shoulder. And you partially quote YOURSELF to make your argument look better; you said;

  ill grant you it doesnt explain lake tangenika or marsupials in australia..but then neither does evolution.

  The red highlight is mine; the words are yours. If you don't like your behaviour being called childish, change your behaviour dude.

  Take some responsibility for your actions. You may not have realised your attitude would get that response. The least you can do is deal with that reaction. Or is making everything someone else's responsibility (misunderstanding you, teaching you about evolution from the ground up) going to be how you deal with things from now on?

  If you're willing to have a discussion and be honest about what you do and do not know, and not tell everyone at the top that you're right, just because you are, you might find you are treated differently.