Evolution My ToE

[Subduction Zone]

@Audie your deleted post gave me a new goal for 2020. Creating a theory of evolution that really cares about others.

It may say things like:

We are sorry that you are still an ape, but that is reality.

 

[Audie]

@Audie your deleted post gave me a new goal for 2020. Creating a theory of evolution that really cares about others.

It may say things like:

We are sorry that you are still an ape, but that is reality.

Delrted coz others said the same thing.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Oh, did he say that? I missed it.
Quite posdibly he does think so, but
we have, yes, substantial evidence
that it is not so at all, and most of what
there is, is misinformation.

In some of his early posting he spoke of his education and high level of success at testing on the material in question. A claim that quickly has come under fire given the apparent lack of knowledge on the subject matter he exhibits. Along with statements he has made that refute his own claims of understanding.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

@Audie your deleted post gave me a new goal for 2020. Creating a theory of evolution that really cares about others.

It may say things like:

We are sorry that you are still an ape, but that is reality.

Beneficial mutations. Because nature cares enough to send the very best. Sorry about less optimal offerings.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Beneficial mutations. Because nature cares enough to send the very best. Sorry about less optimal offerings.

Perhaps we can start a whole new use (and more etymologically accurate) of the word "apologetics".

 

[Bear Wild]

I don't think I am going out on a limb here to suggest that, no, he does not.

Ah my favorite rabbit and as correct as always.

 

[Bear Wild]

I have given my response some thought before rendering it, since it clearly needs to be thoughtfully conveyed. I am not trying to offend you or put you down. It is not personal and I think you would be a fine person to know in reality given what I have seen in here and our differences aside. However, in the case where someone is placing ideology and doctrine ahead of logic, reason and evidence, they are taking an anti-intellectual position. It is not simply a dispute over common descent that I base this on. Your particular church and many churches and religions have a history of closing the door on anything that challenges the prescribed view of the world that is founded on a dogma of believed conditions and not on observed conditions. Certainly, I do not see you as a worst case. Someone like @dad is a good example of that. He just makes up fantasy interpretations of the world, religion and science, declares them universal truths and then spends his entire presence here continually repeating that nonsense. You are here and willing to discuss, so that is a positive.

Do you really think a global flood is supported by the evidence you have presented in light of all the evidence that demonstrates there was no flood? Is a Chinese character really that compelling as evidence for a global flood? Or is it the line that your church holds and since you are a good member, you hold it too? That would be an anti-intellectual position as distasteful as that may be to you.

You are equating the reliance on dogma in religion for drawing conclusions as being on a par with intellectual challenges over explanations within science. That is a false comparison. The two are not even close, let alone equal. The sheer number, sources and diversity of ideological claims shatters that comparison without any need for continuing examples.

Much is made by creationists --way too much--of the controversies in science, and scientists, admittedly at times, can be dogmatic. As much as I may wish we all met the ideal of objectivity more closely. At least science promotes and strives for objectivity and questioning. But these controversies are based on evidence, weighing that evidence for reason, and an underlying logic. Not on some dogmatic doctrine. Scientists do not propose changes caprisciously for no good reason or based on the doctrine of some group the belong to.

Scientists constantly challenge the conclusions of science. That is practically the job description. Science is forced by its own structure and ethics to deal with even the most bizarre and poorly founded claims. Just the existence of alternative claims is not evidence of a weakness in established claims or that there is a controversy or where one does exist it is to the extent of significance that detractors hope for. But even in dealing with radical or weak claims, knowledge can be discovered. Often, it is in division that science is moved forward.

Even though a position placing religious dogma over true learning is truly an anti-intellectual position, I do not wish to imply that I think that is all that you, personally, are about. I find that you are an interesting and engaging presence here and much of what you have posted has pressed me to look deeper and understand better. Even material and positions I disagree with. I hope that this post reflects the thought I put into it in recognition of that and does not inspire you to close a door. I truly believe that you can accept science and maintain your belief in God without the human imposed restrictions. Personally, I don't see that you can't be a good Jehovah's Witness even if you were to accept the theory of common descent. It is not as if any Christian truly understands God enough to make declarations about Him.

Very well stated. Challenges to evolution are important and strengthens the theory. Challenges help all of us to think more and are welcome in science.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Very well stated. Challenges to evolution are important and strengthens the theory. Challenges help all of us to think more and are welcome in science.

Yep, that is the scientific method. Make observations, form a hypothesis, test the concept, find its failures (and there will be failures) amend concept so that it is more accurate. Rinse and repeat. Scientists learn from their errors.

ID was originally testable when Behe first introduced it. It failed those tests badly. He redefined it to the point that it is no longer testable. That seems like such a good idea to creationists, except that then one has removed it from the scientific method. When a scientist forms an incorrect hypothesis the the tests that it fails very often point to a more correct answer. ID as it is defined now is not testable. That puts it into the worthless position of "Not even wrong".

 

[dad]

No you have it backwards. Ignorance is in the believing in scriptures and not the natural world. You live in imagination and ignore reality. So sad.

Your religion is not reality to others.

 

[dad]

The natural world is the only reality. .

Not to most people on earth of all ages. Maybe to narrow minded religions it may be.

 

[dad]

Someone like @dad is a good example of that. He just makes up fantasy interpretations of the world, religion and science, declares them universal truths and then spends his entire presence here continually repeating that nonsense. .

Don't conflate your inability to distinguish fantasy from reality, truth from fiction, with fantasy. You choose what you believe.

 

[dad]

That's where critical thinking comes into play. So if someone tells you to, A- how to properly own a slave vs B- you shouldn't own slaves, or C- you should only own certain slaves. Then the only logical conclusion is that the person is not against slavery if he allows A and/or C. Both of them allow you to own slaves.

No. If we are told the world is wicked and given tips to try and tact kindly in this world, that is not advocating wickedness, just dealing with it.

Even if you throw in D- the person does and say nothing, as long as he allows either A or C or both, he is not against slavery. See,

The bible says plenty about freedom and tells us who are the real slaves. You want to portray some class of workers as the only slaves. No. all men are slaves unless they are freed.

Standing by and doing nothing to stop slavery does not necassarly mean that you are against slavery, but telling someone to properly be a slave owner sure don't mean that you are not against slavery.

Jesus died to stop it.

Here's an easy thinking exercise for you.

If a son tells his dad that he cannot kill animals with the exception of cows, does that mean that the son is against the killing of animals?

When God tells you not to oppress others, and to feed the poor and free the slaves, that is not killing cows.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I am fortunate in easily recognizing some confused clown who has no idea what he is talking about. One whose anti-intellectual opinions are based on delusions and fantasy.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Burger King should do tremendous business with creationists as the home of the 'impossible whopper'. The impossible whopper. Just like dear old dad makes em.

 

[Audie]

Yep, that is the scientific method. Make observations, form a hypothesis, test the concept, find its failures (and there will be failures) amend concept so that it is more accurate. Rinse and repeat. Scientists learn from their errors.

ID was originally testable when Behe first introduced it. It failed those tests badly. He redefined it to the point that it is no longer testable. That seems like such a good idea to creationists, except that then one has removed it from the scientific method. When a scientist forms an incorrect hypothesis the the tests that it fails very often point to a more correct answer. ID as it is defined now is not testable. That puts it into the worthless position of "Not even wrong".

some sci fi writer had a code from god appear
at something like the ten trillionth decimal of pi.

MAYBE irreducible, ID will be found. It sure hasnt yet.

 

[Bear Wild]

Not to most people on earth of all ages. Maybe to narrow minded religions it may be.

Actually it is the reverse. You are so narrow minded dependent on a book limited to what is written only. It takes an open mind to understand the natural world for what it is. Expanding your understanding to seeing beyond the limited human experience. The result is complete awe and respect to the natural world with no dependence on magical thinking and limited stories.

 

[Bear Wild]

Your religion is not reality to others.

So you do not live in the natural world? That's right you are trapped in your fantasy world.

 

[Audie]

Very well stated. Challenges to evolution are important and strengthens the theory. Challenges help all of us to think more and are welcome in science.

And tho I doubt our creationists pals would brlieve this,,
a fundamental challenge would be extremely welcome
fascinating nobel winning news!

("How come theres still monkeys"aint it)

 

[McBell]

("How come theres still monkeys"aint it)

It's the banana, isn't it?

 

[Audie]

It's the banana, isn't it?

See you in Stockholm.