Evolution My ToE

[Hockeycowboy]

Which mature wine consumer would EVER drink SWEET red wine!!! You're not a wine connoisseur-- you're a wine sewer!!!

Buy me a good Bordeaux and I'll be your friend forever!

Whoever said I'm mature? Lol.
(I rarely drink a dry wine.)
What brand of Bordeaux do you like, metis?

 

[YoursTrue]

Evolution theory makes an almost countless amount of testable predictions.
Each of these can be tested. Every successfull test serves as a confirmation of the theory.

Every genome sequences, every fossil found,... serves as a test of the theory.
We don't find mammals with feathers. We don't find rabbits in pre-cambrian rock. We don't find genomes that break the phylogenetic nested hierarchies.

As far as testable predictions, how does that go? Please explain how to test a prediction in evolution. Thank you. Are you saying that because a dinosaur fossil was found that showed evidence of feathers that means birds evolved from dinosaurs? But please explain how scientists test predictions in evolution. Thanks again.

 

[YoursTrue]

wow, golly, I guess that means ancient middle eastern tall tales are 100% true....

What it says is that peer reviews are not up to quality in many cases. I guess you didn't read the article. But there are others -- since you evidently put so much faith in "peer reviews." Now let's see -- here's an interesting and fascinating article about "peer reviews."
Based on research of "peer reviewed articles." Quite interesting. Two researchers at Cornell and the University of North Dakota decided to run an experiment to test the process of peer review. It's an eye-opener.
Let's stop pretending peer review works.

 

[Subduction Zone]

@Hockeycowboy that was a great debate.
Do you get the impression that Michael Shermer does not listen. Perhaps his mind is just running wild.

Question for Michael Shermer.
Can Michael Shermer provide just one example of random mutations, erecting whole new genetic information that leads to a new vertical species?

Michael Shermer : Well first of all... natural selection is not random.
Wait what? Who said anything about natural selection being random?

.That is what is called an ignorant question. And it shows a bit of dishonesty since it sounds as if there is a massive strawman behind it. It shows that the person asking the question does not understand speciation. Now Michael Shermer may not understand speciation either. Sometimes a person that does not fully understand a subject will punt a bit when asked a dishonest question. That does not make the person answering the question dishonest.

Is there some background to this question? Do you now why it was asked?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Falsely called science. Falsely called knowledge. Philosophies of men. What's the difference? I don't see any. What difference do you see?

I wonder if you will be willing to admit that, it's not JWs with the agenda, here, but rather that you have a problem with JWs, and like other posters on here, those emotions drive your response to the posts of any JW.
In other words, rather than debate what the poster says, you attack the poster, and their religion... so long as you know the person is a JW. Is that fair to say?
Here, let me show you...
You say, "It seems that the Bible your leaders have you using has a rather clear-cut "agenda"."
What does that have to do with the subject at hand? Nothing.
All it does is detract from the point the poster is making.
It almost seems like some people bring their hangups about JWs from their doorstep, to their computer. ...and they just like to use the word agenda when they talk to JWs.
Yet, there are people of all religions - including Methodists, Anglican, Catholic... all of the religions - who disagree with your belief (about ToE). Some even publicly denounce theistic evolution ... from the pulpit too.
So it really beats me, why you keep putting your

on JWs when discussing this topic.
Can you please explain? That one has got me beat. I understand the hatred. I know the reason for that... but this... why?

The other thing which shows it's clearly an emotional response, is this - The translation I used is the good old KJV, which most members of the Methodist church love, and consider to be... "the holy Bible" - the real Bible.
So. there you go. You made a false accusation, and if that wasn't driven by emotions...

Also, whether people accept it or not, JWs have no leaders. They consider what the Bible says at Matthew 23:8-11 to be words of truth, not allegory or myth, but words said by a real person, who performed miracles, through the power given him by his supernatural Father. Yes. The same one - Jesus - who himself came from a supernatural origin.
Thus JWs take seriously, those words in the Bible - the book about God - and apply them.


Millions of Christians disagree with you on that.
Many, who are not JWs would disagree with a passion - including scientist. "What? The scriptures are not what?
Isn't that equivalent to calling the Bible writers liars? Are you saying they had no knowledge, and none that was gained through investigation?

Why do you read the scriptures seven days a week, if you consider most of it myth? Do you include Genesis, and how do you read Jesus' words about Moses?


I appreciate your telling me this, because it confirms what I said above, doesn't it? Emotions do get in the was of fruitful discussion sometimes.
Thank you for admitting that... and I accept your apology.
At least, in future, if it does happen again, I will try to remember this... and remind you of it.

I understand quite well, that people are lied to, in their religions, and I think it is easy to see why, and how that happens.
Were you being lied to about Bible teachings, what was being done with your monetary contributions, or what was going on behind closed doors?
It's hard to be lied to, about Biblical teachings, if one is a serious student of the Bible.
That's why, I appreciate the method JWs use, in seeking to imitate their master, Christ Jesus.
They visit their neighbors homes, and offer them a free Bible study. In this way, the householder is not obligated to swallow what is preached from a pulpit. The householder can think for themselves, ask questions, challenge answers given, or shown, and are not under obligation, or do not feel compelled to accept these teachings. Some do not even become JWs after studying for years. They may even attend meetings regularly, and never become a JW.
Even if someone walks off the street, and starts attending meeting, perhaps because they admire the conduct of JWs, or they heard something they like, they too have to go through the same process of studying the Bible. If after studying a person has problems with certain teachings, they are free to say, "Thanks, but no thanks."
No one becomes a JW, unless they agree of their own accord, that what they see in the Bible is in agreement with what JWs are teaching.
So if one ever feels that the JWs are teaching lies, they are not obligated to attend our meetings.
The householder has full control over their choice.

Contrary to this, people leave their home, looking for a place of worship to go, but because they have very little knowledge of what the Bible really teaches, they are "in the hands of their pastor", and don't know if they are being fed manna, or mod. Often it's mud. So they leave with tummy aches, or worst. Some wisely, never return. Those we often find.
So, I understand full well, that situation.
The question is though, do people run from one mud table, only to feed at another, where the mud is just made with added sugar.

Good grief!

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes, there are issues with peer review.

Yet even a flawed system is head and shoulders above merely accepting the veracity of things because it jibes with your worldview.





So, you admit to believing things solely because it fits your beliefs.

Got it.

You like your beliefs, don't you? Do I like mine? Yes.
But you can't even believe or agree with your own pro-evolution scientists and journals and analyses of them. Governments themselves can have one group against another, including in a democracy with vastly differing ideas. To the point of great divides and hostilities. And killing others, whether by criminal or non-criminal standards. Both sides of a democratic government can't be right, can they? And, it's possible that both sides are wrong. Naturally I say both sides, often there are many more 'sides.' And people generally have to make a choice. As it has been said, "A house divided cannot stand." So time will tell. Thus to sum up, when studies and articles are produced that assail the system you promote, you really turn, like many politicians do, to assailing the other candidate. I'm shaking my head here -- amazing. Rather than admit what's true, like the justice system and trial producing evidence, mistakes happen, don't they. People can be falsely condemned and falsely deemed innocent. By the "best we have."
From Scientific American, which I don't think is a "creationist" journal:
"Although science as a field discards theories that are wrong or lacking, Shtulman and Valcarcel’s work suggests that individuals —even scientifically literate ones — tend to hang on to their early, unschooled, and often wrong theories about the natural world. Even long after we learn that these intuitions have no scientific support, they can still subtly persist and influence our thought process. Like old habits, old concepts seem to die hard."
Your Scientific Reasoning Is More Flawed Than You Think
On another level, democracy has been said to be the best mankind has. Yet there are those analysts who say it's falling in on itself. That is an example of reasoning from the human standpoint as to what is right and what is wrong. But go back to what Scientific American says about the best way of reasoning, no matter, how flawed it can be, remaining that way. I hope you read the article.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Evidently, you did not read my post, but skipped through it.
If you needed to rush off, you could have responded when you returned.
How would you feel if you took the time to respond to someone, and they did not bother listening to, or considering half of what you said?
That's not very inviting, is it?
Wouldn't you feel like you wasted your time, and wouldn't feel inclined to do it again?

Repeating... The translation I used is the KJV (King James Version).
KJV: O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:

There is also the WBT (Webster Bible Translation)
WBT: O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called;

The transaction of JWs, in the NWT. It uses the word knowledge.
(1 Timothy 6:20) Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you, turning away from the empty speeches that violate what is holy and from the contradictions of the falsely called “knowledge.”

However, if it used the word "science", it would not be incorrect.
Greek
γνώσεως

Strong's Concordance
Transliteration: gnósis:
Definition: a knowing, knowledge
Usage: knowledge, doctrine, wisdom.

Science (from the Latin word scientia, meaning "knowledge")

science (n.)
mid-14c., "what is known, knowledge (of something) acquired by study; information;" also "assurance of knowledge, certitude, certainty," from Old French science "knowledge, learning, application; corpus of human knowledge" (12c.), from Latin scientia "knowledge, a knowing; expertness," from sciens (genitive scientis) "intelligent, skilled," present participle of scire "to know," probably originally "to separate one thing from another, to distinguish," related to scindere "to cut, divide," from PIE root *skei- "to cut, split" (source also of Greek skhizein "to split, rend, cleave," Gothic skaidan, Old English sceadan "to divide, separate").


This is not the thread to get into that, but I know the poster was not lying, and you admitted that you left a previous religion, because you found out, you were being lied to.
So might the poster be really lovingly be pointing out to you, that you are being lied to again. Did you take note - one mud table to another?

Can I quote what you said here, in another thread, so we can discuss it?


Perhaps you didn't want to address the other questions.
Can I ask you a few questions on this, in another thread?


Studying theology is not the same as studying the Bible. It's studying doctrines, which is no different to being taught what to believe.
Jesus did not go to any school, to learn the scriptures, nor did his followers. Yet the were well versed, not in the religious doctrines, Jesus called "commands of men as doctrines".

A wall of print and all nonsense.

 

[YoursTrue]

@Hockeycowboy that was a great debate.
Do you get the impression that Michael Shermer does not listen. Perhaps his mind is just running wild.

Question for Michael Shermer.
Can Michael Shermer provide just one example of random mutations, erecting whole new genetic information that leads to a new vertical species?

Michael Shermer : Well first of all... natural selection is not random.
Wait what? Who said anything about natural selection being random?

I gotta say something here. OK, I'm not as smart as some, I admit it. (Sometimes. Maybe.) But if I heard someone like Michael Shermer say, "natural selection is not random," I might just tell myself I don't understand what he's saying and walk away puzzled, or after these discussions, I might ask, "What do you mean that natural selection is not random?" And then perhaps add -- "It's not random?" (And silently ask myself, "what? it's not random?")

 

[Subduction Zone]

I gotta say something here. OK, I'm not as smart as some, I admit it. (Sometimes. Maybe.) But if I heard someone like Michael Shermer say, "natural selection is not random," I might just tell myself I don't understand what he's saying and walk away puzzled, or after these discussions, I might ask, "What do you mean that natural selection is not random?" And then perhaps add -- "It's not random?" (And silently ask myself, "what? it's not random?")

.Of course it isn't. It is the opposite of random. You might be thinking of variation.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No...they have found no obvious precursors! That would be the deciding evidence. But they are missing.

The fact, is that those creatures in the Cambrian exist.....that's what I was referring to.

Not missing. Merely unidentified. The sort of fossils in the Edicarian are totally different from the fossils of the Cambrian. Edicarian fossils are castings of soft tissues. Those are extremely rare and quite often very different from hard body parts, except in this case before the Cambrian there were no hard body parts. Why do creationists think that his is a problem? Obviously if they think that this is a problem then they can have no problem with evolution after the Cambrian.

Or were they merely being dishonest again?

 

[dad]

The sort of fossils in the Edicarian are totally different from the fossils of the Cambrian.

The things that died and could leave remains naturally would form a progression when we start at the beginning of life. By the time the Cambrian got here it may have been decades or even centuries after creation. Naturally more things would be dying. More thing that could leave fossil remains.
The thing that mystifies this simple reality for you seems to be taking the belief-based dates about Adam's day being many millions of years ago seriously.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No...they have found no obvious precursors! That would be the deciding evidence. But they are missing.

The fact, is that those creatures in the Cambrian exist.....that's what I was referring to.

This is why you should inform yourself better instead of just focussing on a single quote that you didn't even understand properly.

For example:

Does the Cambrian Explosion pose a challenge to evolution? - Common-questions

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

As far as testable predictions, how does that go? Please explain how to test a prediction in evolution.

I just told you.
Every new genome sequenced, every fossil found, has to fit the predicted result of evolution.
That predicted result being nested hierarchies. And that's pretty broad. To fit the nested hierarchy, all kinds of factors come into play: comparative anatomy, comparative genomes, age of the species, even the geographic whereabouts! Finding a population of wild kangaroo fossils in latin america for example, would be problematic, EVEN if the ages and physiological properties are fine.

So finding a DNA sequence that doesn't fit phylogenetic trees or fossils in the wrong place or time, would be something that doesn't fit the evolutionary process.

But we never find such things. And new genomes and fossils sequenced and continously.

On the smaller scale, even a agricultural and breeding programs are tests of evolution theory, as such programs literally use evolutionary processes to accomplish whatever they wish to accomplish.

It's through evolutionary processes that we managed to turn a wild banana into the eatable banana we all know and love. It's through these processes that we managed to take a single wild gabbage plant, barely fit for consumption, and turned it into things as diverse as brussel sprouts and broccoli.

If evolution didn't work, we shouldn't be able to do such things.

Are you saying that because a dinosaur fossil was found that showed evidence of feathers that means birds evolved from dinosaurs?

That's one piece of evidence for birds being related to dino's, yes.
Another is the fact that birds ARE dino's, just like humans ARE mammals.

It's impossible to come up with a definition of "dinosaur" which includes ALL dinosaurs, but excludes birds, without explicitly and arbitrarily adding "but not birds".

Just like you can't define "mammal" while excluding humans without explicitly and arbitrarily adding "but not humans".

But please explain how scientists test predictions in evolution. Thanks again.

I just explained it. But I have the feeling that it will go in one ear and out the other.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The things that died and could leave remains naturally would form a progression when we start at the beginning of life. By the time the Cambrian got here it may have been decades or even centuries after creation. Naturally more things would be dying. More thing that could leave fossil remains.
The thing that mystifies this simple reality for you seems to be taking the belief-based dates about Adam's day being many millions of years ago seriously.

It was billions of years. And of course anyone that can reason understands how we know that there was no Adam.

 

[metis]

Sorry, but I'm gonna have to be brief because I'm dealing with shoveling a lot of snow today.

This is not the thread to get into that, but I know the poster was not lying,

That person definitely was lying as I repeatedly cited official Catholic sources to show that worship any material items is forbidden by canon law, and it always has been a teaching as such. When I posted the quote with links, that person virtually ignored it and come back with the same lie. And then it happened at least one more time with again another lie.

So, what you now are doing is either being ill-informed or lying in support of that person. The Gospels tell us that we are to be honest, but that person seems to think that this is unnecessary to follow.

Can I quote what you said here, in another thread, so we can discuss it?

Yes, but I probably won't be able to get to it until Monday because I don't get on-line on Sunday.

Perhaps you didn't want to address the other questions.
Can I ask you a few questions on this, in another thread?

Yes.

Studying theology is not the same as studying the Bible.

When one is studying Christian theology, it very much is studying the scriptures, so obviously you really don't know what you're talking about on this. Matter of fact, not to do so leaves one open to being brainwashed by those who can be out to con you and then to take your money and freedom as well.

There's a saying that goes "If you have one clock, you know exactly what time it is; but if you have many clocks, you won't know exactly what time it is". By studying different takes on different narratives, one learns not to be trapped into just one way of interpreting a narrative. Because you admittedly don't do that, you essentially put yourself in a cage with one "clock", thus thinking that you know what the exact "time" it is.

And your leaders don't want you to look at other "clocks". Checking out another denominations can get you shunned. Reading even other denominations materials can get you shunned. Questioning your religious teachers on an interpretation can get you shunned, or even worse.

IOW, you are in a cage with one "clock", unable to even have the freedom to even check out other "clocks" without getting into trouble.

It's studying doctrines, which is no different to being taught what to believe.

False. See above.

 

[metis]

What brand of Bordeaux do you like, metis?

Since it all comes from the same region of France, I've found that there's not a great deal of difference in taste. But since I only drink wine at dinner, I generally look for sales.

BTW, a good imported Chianti also pleases my taste buds as it also is a dry red. Most domestic chianti tends to be too sweet or watered down for me.

About the only sweet wine we drink is Asti from Italy. My wife and I have this Christmas Eve tradition of putting on our favorite Christmas c.d., which we only play on that night, sitting by the fireplace, drinking Asti, and just taking it all in with only a little talking. Very romantic, but not in a sexual way per se.

How about you?

 

[dad]

It was billions of years.

It was thousands of years ago. Your dating wishes are overruled until you get more than belief to back them up.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Since it all comes from the same region of France, I've found that there's not a great deal of difference in taste. But since I only drink wine at dinner, I generally look for sales.

BTW, a good imported Chianti also pleases my taste buds as it also is a dry red. Most domestic chianti tends to be too sweet or watered down for me.

About the only sweet wine we drink is Asti from Italy. My wife and I have this Christmas Eve tradition of putting on our favorite Christmas c.d., which we only play on that night, sitting by the fireplace, drinking Asti, and just taking it all in with only a little talking. Very romantic, but not in a sexual way per se.

How about you?

Nothing better than spending quality time with your mate!

Actually I like Chianti. My wife used to, too...but she’s avoided alcohol for quite a while, now; she’s very careful about her diet, but I’ll try just about anything. I try not to tempt her in that regard, too much.

I’m always bringing some new food home, though. But it’s usually on the healthy side.

I introduced her to Tiramisu several years ago — best thing she ever tasted,, she said — and even tho now she won’t eat it, she’ll make me some every couple of months. That’s willpower! I ain’t got it.

I mean, cream, cognac, and coffee are just too good together! Lol.

When you say Asti, you mean like, Asti Spumanti, right?

 

[metis]

Nothing better than spending quality time with your mate!

Amen to that! I definitely married "up" as she very much changed my life for the better, and we'll have been married 53 years this March.

I introduced her to Tiramisu several years ago — best thing she ever tasted,

My wife loves it but I don't. But then there are very few sweets I like. Flan and occasional pumpkin pie is about as far as I go.

I mean, cream, cognac, and coffee are just too good together! Lol.

I like dry red wine, Lemoncello, and an occasional beer (preferably Guinness), but that's about it when it comes to alcohol.

When you say Asti, you mean like, Asti Spumanti, right?

Yep, and also Asti Cinzano, which we like even better. Ever have either?

Anyhow, I'm outta here shortly, so have a great rest of the weekend.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

This is why you should inform yourself better instead of just focussing on a single quote that you didn't even understand properly.

For example:

Does the Cambrian Explosion pose a challenge to evolution? - Common-questions

Please, don’t tell me I didn’t understand.

This “rapid diversification” mentioned in the article, is just special pleading, trying to make the evidence fit into a box that the facts don’t reveal.