-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Coming out as creationists: fear.
- Thread starter Estro Felino
- Start date
gnostic
The Lost One
No she doesn’t.
She still everyday use of theory and scientific theory are one and the same.
She have been here for years, and she should’ve learned what scientific theory is all about, but she can’t learn, and she simply won’t learn from her mistake.
She still doesn’t know what evidence is, and what is proof, because she they are synonymous in science.
Her science background is appalling, but she know better than everyone else, and that’s partly her big ego but it is also partly because of JW indoctrination.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
In her defense the Jehovah's Witnesses are one of the more evil Christian cults out there. If a person does not go along with dogma that person may be ordered to be shunned. That includes that person's immediate family. It can be very hard to risk all family. Perhaps she thinks she is somehow defending hers.
Gnostic, there is that little kid again.....read your phraseology.....how come sometimes you can phrase things well, like an educated adult and other times you speak in broken English like a child?
I find it quite confusing....like I am speaking to two different people.
What makes a theory in science different from a theory in general? It starts with a hypothesis...correct?
What is a hypothesis?
- a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.
synonyms: theory, theorem, thesis, conjecture, supposition, speculation, postulation, postulate, proposition, premise, surmise, assumption, presumption, presupposition; More
notion, concept, idea, contention, opinion, view, belief- a proposition made as a basis for reasoning, without any assumption of its truth."
OK, so that is how it starts......but how does it finish up being a "scientific" theory as opposed to being just "conjecture, supposition, speculation, postulation, postulate, proposition, premise, surmise, assumption, presumption, presupposition, notion, concept, idea, contention, opinion, view, belief"?
Scientists test to see if their hypothesis holds water, so what kind of testing does this require? One would think that it needs to be tested beyond such things as stated above...but what do we find? We find that science can test and produce evidence for very limited "adaptation".
What is adaptation?....
"The special characteristics that enable plants and animals to be successful in a particular environment are called adaptations. Camouflage, as in a toad's ability to blend in with its surroundings, is a common example of an adaptation."
"The adaptation that allows some animals to blend into their surroundings is camouflage . Color, patterns, and body shape are adaptations that help camouflage both predators and prey. Because a polar bear's fur looks white, for example, it can blend in with the snow."
Looking through some random sites on Google that speak about adaptation I came across this one....
Unbelievably Amazing Examples of Animal Adaptations
The interesting thing about these various "adaptations" is the overwhelming feeling that they are purposefully designed, not mere products of 'adaptation'. So....what has actually been observed in a lab....you know, like real observable evidence? Funny thing is, I couldn't really find much. How much experimentation has actually been done compared to how monumental their conclusions are? I am seeing a very lop-sided story with very little in the way of "observable" evidence that would take a suggestion and turn it into ground breaking science.
This was also interesting....
adaptation | Definition, Examples, & Facts
After all this time, you want me to accommodate science's definition of the word "theory"? If scientists don't like the connection, then why not change the word instead of the definition? It can't be called science fact because "there are no facts in science", so they keep telling me.....so it must be science fiction masquerading as something it isn't. If you can't prove it...it isn't a fact.
Heaven forbid that anyone would demand "proof" for what science is asserting!
What's the deal with that?
With all due respect...I know very good JWs and the word evil is really unjust.
Yes...I think some isolated cases turn into urban legends and replace reality.
Last edited:
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
I did not say that JW's are evil. The cult that they belong to is evil. There is a big difference between the two.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
There are more than just a few cases. If a person does not follow the unrealistic dogma of the JW's they can and will be shunned. A church that tells you you can't see your mother again for no good reason is evil.
gnostic
The Lost One
Well, it makes me cringed when keep associating science with proof.
Science don’t require absolute proof; science just needs EVIDENCES, as a mean for verification.
How many times mus people explain to you, that in science, proof only mean mathematical statements, eg mathematical equations or formula, or logical representation in a model.
Ok, let me give you some examples.
Einstein Field Equation (EFE):
That’s PROOF used in Einstein’s theory in general relativity, it is not evidence.
There are another 9 equations in EFE, each one is proof to describe the fundamental interactions of gravitation, HENCE, 9 more proofs.
Einstein’s even more famous mass-energy equation, used in special relativity:
That’s another scientific proof, but not a scientific evidence.
Evidences are something that you can actually observe, detect, measure, quantify, test and verify.
Evidences are about testing, refuting and verification.
One of the first tests was that Einstein’s predicted that gravitational field will cause the light to bend, as in curvature. This experiment or test was done in 1919, when observing Mercury.
And this can be done by other objects in space, like stars and galaxies.
That test is evidence. And any one with some basic telescope can perform such a test.
When I was studying physics and electronics for my computer science course, I had to learn some of the basic formulas about electricity, like current, voltage, power and resistance.
Each of these formula were used to describe electricity, and they were PROOFS of electric voltage, current, etc, but they are not evidences for electricity.
Evidences are when you detect and measure electricity, using multimeter. Those measurements are my data and my evidences.
When I construct a circuit to perform a specific task, using resistors, capacitors, transistors, diodes, wires, etc, and a power source. What I am building is evidence, not mere mathematical proof.
Evidences are always more important than proofs. But when evidences and proofs work together, than I would have proof and evidences.
But what if the evidences doesn’t support the formula. What would you do?
(a) Would you ditch the evidences?
(b) Or would you ditch the equations (proofs)?
(b) Or would you ditch the equations (proofs)?
If you was a honest scientist, you would always ditch the proof, not the evidences.
Proof are only logical description or statement, like equations, but they are abstract, not real.
Do you understand the differences between proof and evidence, now?
Last edited:
If you have no proof, then you have no facts. Surely you can comprehend this?
Without verification, all you have is baseless assumption, which is what I have stated all along. Why do I keep associating science with proof? Because proof is the only true verification that what you believe is true.
Again, heaven forbid that anyone would sell their soul to the devil with no payment.
What happens to the world that God created if you exclude him? I think we are seeing it right before our eyes.
Do you understand what this theory has done to the youth of the world in the last 50 years? It has convinced a whole generation that science is a good substitute for belief in a Creator. It has taken away the only means that the world has for a secure and peaceful future...it just doesn't know it yet.
Science is now defended with equal passion and fervor by those who sold out to an unproven theory over an unproven God. The uncomfortable laws that the Creator made for our benefit, can now be dismissed with impunity....or can they? What is the real price that humans will pay for this separation on such flimsy grounds? Time will tell I guess.
Evidences for macro-evolution.....? seriously are a joke. Scientists who are already convinced that evolution is an incontrovertible truth, will interpret every bit of "evidence" to support their theory. How is that verification? Its more like false validation IMO.
Mob mentality will herd people into one corral.....they have the same faith in science that we have in God. So, I guess one group is going to be very disappointed. According to God the "sheep" are in one pen and the "goats" are in the other. We choose the pen....but on what are we basing our decisions? Reality or a false dichotomy? What if macro-evolution and YEC are both equally wrong?
When are you going to understand that the Creator does not have to play by man's rules? He is the inventor of maths and science....what does he care about man's interpretation of what He has made? It alters nothing...it just gives you all justification....to me, its empty and it leads nowhere. But if it satisfies you, then you are welcome to it.
Tell me how science can observe, detect, quantify and verify things that happened millions of years ago?
That is not possible with any reliability!
Yep.....and what I have demonstrated over and over is that science fudges the evidence for macro-evolution by attaching it to adaptation and claiming that they are one and the same thing, only over a long period of time....they are not. You cannot use adaptation to prove macro-evolution because there is no real evidence that adaptation can go further than what happens in a lab. It is suggested, but not observable, verifiable, or testable.....just like God.
SMH....If you can't verify something it isn't evidence....it is a suggestion....an assertion....a guess.
And that is why you would always be wondering if someone was going to provide some evidence tomorrow by suggesting something that topped the previous suggestion that everyone was told was correct
.....that's science?
That is a total contradiction of logic...."proof" is absolute....there is no refuting proof. It is a truth, not open to interpretation.
OTOH, evidence especially with generous helpings of bias, can be skewed every which way the scientist wants to bend it.
It was never a matter of education mate.....it was always a matter of who you believe and why you believe them.
I believe that this is the situation before all humanity....the Creator is poised to reveal himself and to bring to account those who mislead others into divorcing themselves from him. The old story is still true however.....you can lead a horse to water.....the drinking is up to him.
A fact is simply as state of affairs that can be verified, preferably "reliably" --- meaning, over and over again. But -- outside of deductive logic and mathematics -- there is no such thing as "proof" because everything, no matter how often or reliably it can be verified, could possibly be at some point overturned by new information. For something to be proven, there can be no chance at all that it can be unproven. Do you have any difficulty understanding this?
No, I have difficulty understanding how something that is not provable can be taught as fact.
All I can tell you is think it through. And if that doesn't work, then think it through again. Other than that, I've done my best. Good luck to you!
sandy whitelinger
Veteran Member
If there is going to be any coming out parties I want to be there.Well...at least in my country I have the impression that there are people out there (lay, ecclesiastical...it doesn't matter...) who believe in Creationism, but are too afraid of admitting it publicly, out of fear of being ridiculed.
Statistically speaking, I think almost nobody in the society I live in would say they're proud to believe in creation...the only people who did were a couple of JW's.
Or maybe in the US the Creationist pride is more vivid...while in Europe it's repressed?
Evolution: true or false?
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
I'm gonna repeat this again....
She's told us: 1) nothing anyone posts here will ever convince her to change her mind, 2) she cannot ever compromise on the evolution/creationism issue, 3) if she were to compromise her friends and family would treat her "like a piece of garbage", and 4) if she were to compromise her life would lose all meaning.
So it's not so much that she's defending her family, it's that she's fighting for her entire emotional well-being and sense of self.
Every single time anyone interacts with her (and I'm completely baffled as to why the same people keep trying), they must keep the above in mind.
Last edited:
ecco
Veteran Member
That is completely accurate. People can accept science only up the the point it conflicts with their religious beliefs. Then one or the other has to give way. For those strongly indoctrinated since birth, that is a line that will never be crossed.
exchemist
Veteran Member
Thanks for flagging this up. For me as a newcomer, it is useful to know what personal mines to avoid stepping on.
gnostic
The Lost One
No, the only verification science is evidences, and lots of evidences.
Again, proof is a logical or mathematical statement, like equations and formulas.
The more evidences that support the theory, the more probable it is true.
And the more evidences that are against the theory, the less probable it is true or it is improbable, in which case the theory has being debunked or refuted.
Science is all about verifiability, not absolute proof.
Maths can be absolute, but not science, Deeje. And you would know this, if you ever study the fundamentals of science (and I am not just talking about biology), because if there are newer evidences, meaning new information, that can better support alternative theory, then science must change too, and accept the better or more qualified theory.
Hence science isn’t absolute.
Take for instance the whole history of astronomy, since it has been recorded (meaning writings) that started with ancient Babylonians of 2nd millennium BCE (Bronze Age). They were the ones who began to organise stars the patterns, known as constellations.
These constellations are not real, they are just patterns made up by early astronomers, but they do provide useful way to identify and find the same stars again, each night, because it seemed unchanging. And constellations prove useful to navigators, especially for seamen.
All this, was done without telescope. The Babylonian astronomy prove useful to other cultures and civilisations, including the ancient Greek astronomers, then later Roman astronomers.
The Greek astronomers renamed the constellations and stars with Greek names to mythological figures (eg Orion, Perseus, etc), creatures (eg Jason’s Golden Fleece became the constellation Aries, or the crab that attacked Heracles or killed Orion became constellation Cancer, etc) and objects (eg Sagitta, Latin word for arrow, or the scale of Libra, etc).
It was the 2nd century BCE Greek astronomer Hipparchus, who was the first to do the most extensive cataloguing of the stars and constellations, but this is largely lost, but his works were mentioned by later astronomers including 2nd century CE astronomer Ptolemy.
Without the telescope, about less than 9200 stars can be seen.
What did survive, is that he was able to reliably calculate the solar and lunar eclipses based on observations (evidences) and trigonometry (mathematical proofs).
Ptolemy like most astronomers before him, believe the Earth was stationary, and the sun, planets and moon orbiting the Earth, at the center of planetary system. This system is known as the geocentric model.
An earlier Hellenistic astronomer of the Aristarchus of Samos (early to mid-3rd century BCE), was one who calculated the less heliocentric model, in which is sun was at the centre of planetary system, and the planets, including the Earth, were orbiting around the Sun.
Heliocentric model was so unpopular, that it didn’t reappear again in the West, until Nicolaus Copernicus, who prove (proof) but couldn’t verify (observable evidences), until the invention of the telescope, with Galileo, Johannes Kepler and Issac Newton, verifying Copernicus’ heliocentric model. Copernicus made more accurate calculations than Aristarchus did. But even more Keplers heliocentric, who was the first to discover the orbits were elliptical, not circular.
Although the early telescopes helped astronomers in Europe, the range was still very limited. After Kepler and Galileo, Charles Messier (late 18th century) and William Herschel (18th-19th centuries) separately, did more cataloging of stars and nebulae.
Before Edwin Hubble in the early 20th century, most (17th to 19th centuries) astronomers thought the Milky Way was the entire universe and the only galaxy. They thought Andromeda and Triangulum were nebulae, not separate galaxies.
Andromeda is about 2 million light years from Earth, Triangulum about 3 million, and because they were the most distant objects that can be seen without the telescope. But with the telescope (before Hubble’s time), they were blurry like other
It was Hubble who made the discoveries in 1919 about Andromeda and Triangulum, and found even more galaxies during 1920s and 30s.
Now, if we were rely on proofs (equations), and if proofs were absolute, then the calculations of stars and planets would shown no progress or no advances in our knowledge and we would be stuck with just the maths of Aristarchus and Ptolemy.
But astronomy and other science rely more on evidences than on proofs.
Evidences are what allow us to make better findings and come up with better solutions and explanations.
The reason why proof isn’t absolute in science, because new evidences come with new information, and that mean science must change and better explanations are required to increase out understanding of nature.
Without evidences, there is no progress, if proof (maths) is absolute. Facts come from evidences, not proofs alone.
The problem is that you are using proof and evidence as if they were synonymous, like judges and lawyers in the courtrooms. You are not thinking like scientists and mathematicians, because they both recognise that mathematicians deal with proofs, scientists deal with evidences.
You are not as smart as you think you are, and it doesn’t help when you refused to see that you are wrong on so many levels. You, who don’t have any qualifications in science, let alone in biology.
Oh please...this is a response to valid questions? That is a very twisted version of what I said, but it obviously suits you to say it.
Shooting the messenger obviously works for you.....tell twisted half truths and all of a sudden its a basis for dismissal....gotta warn everyone in case they might think my arguments are actually valid.
I find your avatar to be quite appropriate since you seem to be big on tantrums and short on evidence.
Well thanks for giving me an opportunity to defend myself.....I always respect people who believe what others say before actually asking the person about whom the slander is directed.....
You wanna line up to shoot the messenger too, or do you have some actual evidence to present to support your argument.
Last edited: