Just Accidental?

[ImmortalFlame]

Now, the theory of evolution is a different breed of species, in which it starts to implant tons of philosophical thoughts,

What "philosophical thoughts"?

beliefs, faith, improbabilities, faith in time, ideas that can never be falsified/observed/tested which start to go astray from the scientific method....

What aspects of evolutionary theory are unfalsifiable?

many in which "scientists" differ and disagree on much of the fine print behind closed doors.

"Behind closed doors"? There is lots of open discussion and debate over the finer points of evolutionary theory - just as there is with any other theory in science.

You don't hear about these often, possibly because most aren't allowed to publish anything negative, only positive...it is called information suppression Only publish what you want the public to see. Most articles published are done in a clever manner, which can cause the common mind to see and read things that aren't there and claim inaccurate facts. When these are pointed out to the faithful, fundamental community, it usually results in hostility and beasts coming out from the closet to defend their own beliefs. It gets pretty emotional. Rather than focus on the questioning at hand regarding what's been said... it generally turns to attacking character and attempting to make one feel inferior to their self-perceived superiority..

Inventing a conspiracy doesn't add credibility to your argument. I suggest you take your own advice and stick only to debating facts and not inventing conspiracies and resorting to playing the victim.

It is also an industry which relies on reputation/credibility/to keep up with a certain image at all costs. One may lose their reputation, credibility, if they speak out or are brave enough to question certain things. Plus, if someone were to find sound evidence that counters years and years of sacrifice and hard work, reputation /credibility and image building... the human mind will tend to overlook this/ignore it, and continue to justify at all costs. Intelligence in the human is not exempt from this.

You do realize that there was (and continues to be) a vast, religious objection to evolutionary theory, right? That when evolution was first proposed it was rejected and derided by many people - and it wasn't until the facts actually came to light that the theory began to be accepted. What you have described is just the very prejudice that evolution had to fight against BEFORE being accepted.

Like most people who do not like an idea, you will off-handedly dismiss it when it is in the minority and call doing so "common sense" when the majority agree with you, but as soon as the idea catches on and starts becoming too popular to dismiss so easily you invent a conspiracy act like the idea is a cudgel wielded by bullies designed specifically to pacify you. And yet you also say you only want to debate facts and not emotions. You cannot have it both ways.

Either have a grown up discussion about the facts - and nothing else - or stop attempting to debate science in any capacity. Your choice.

 

[SkepticThinker]

It isn't a matter of deliberately lying on the part of the scientists....it is more a matter of being wilfully misled.....something they would accuse us of being.

The interesting thing about conspiracy theories is that many of them are true. They are lumped in with the more ridiculous stuff in the hope that you will not be able to tell the difference....it works, for many people. You know...guilt by association. This is a common ploy used when seeking to discredit something or someone.



The irony is in the fact that the scientists themselves are not aware of how they are led along in this conspiracy. The power behind it, I believe, is greater than man. (2 Corinthians 4:3-4) It is a blindness that does not affect the eyes, but the mind. It is a wanting to believe something and grasping at any excuse to keep on believing it because the consequence for not doing so is unthinkable. Sound familiar?



The part where there is no independence. If all these "peers" believe that evolution is a given to start with, then there can be no objectivity....and certainly no criteria for true independence in their findings. Disagreeing about details in various fields of science would fill volumes.



Is that what really happens in real life? In a perfect world that might be the case.....in the real world, it is a long way from how it is.
Did you read the article I linked to? Peer review is a sham.



If they are all seeking to interpret the evidence to fit their theory, then all those biologists are being misled by one another...and all with the same agenda. Can you not see this?



And the interpretation of that evidence is what is taken as scientific fact.....but the truth is those facts cannot be backed up by "proof". If it cannot be proven, then it was never a fact to begin with. Science plays fast and loose with their definitions.



Again, "probability" is like the weather forecast....it might, or might not be true.
To predict rain and then see nothing but sunshine is defining what probability truely means. It means that the expectation isn't always what results. Yet if it rained in one small part of a neighborhood, they will still claim to be correct.



Thank you. That part of your post has been reported.



What is superstitious about my beliefs? I do not rely on any superstition at all.
I rely on what science already knows....that life cannot spring from nothing. It has to come from pre-existing life. To believe in a life form that human scientist cannot prove to exist, is not superstition. It is simply undiscovered science IMO.

It is arrogant of science to dismiss the possibility of an all powerful Creator and to belittle those who exercise as much faith in him, as scientist do in their own belief system. Science does not really have the superior position in this argument, since it has been clearly shown that they also have an unprovable belief system, just like we do......galling isn't it?

This has not been shown. Not at all. The opposite has been shown to you so many times it isn't even funny anymore. Scientists have evidence. You have faith. Those are not anywhere near being equal, as you have so aptly demonstrated throughout this thread. Scientific inquiry results in knowledge of the world around us. Anything can be believed on faith and therefore it is not a reliable path to truth and knowledge. Thank you for showing us that in your thread here.

 

[ArtieE]

Chemical pollution is also threatening the water table in many places resulting in cancer clusters and other debilitating diseases and auto-immune disorders in those who rely on bore water for drinking and for crop irrigation. Need I mention the latest fiasco in Australia with the foam used by the defence force in fire fighting?

What is this "intelligence" you keep speaking about? It is certainly not the same as wisdom, because I fail to see much of that exercised in science. Can we be a bit realistic here?

"Watchtower Caught Dumping Chemicals" Watchtower Caught Dumping Chemicals

"The Watchtower Farms site is situated in the Hudson River Watershed area, meaning that any contaminants released into the soil from the antiquated drums could easily wind up in local drinking water.

It is uncertain exactly how and when the drums were buried, but it appears that the drums, filled with chemical waste including inks and solvents, were buried over a certain period in the Society’s history dating as far back as the 70s in an apparent attempt to “cut corners” rather than dispatching the pollutants to the appropriate waste disposal facility."
Watch Tower Faces Clean-up Bill For "Ruining The Earth" - JWsurvey

 

[metis]

Now, the theory of evolution is a different breed of species, in which it starts to implant tons of philosophical thoughts, beliefs, faith, improbabilities, faith in time, ideas that can never be falsified/observed/tested which start to go astray from the scientific method.... many in which "scientists" differ and disagree on much of the fine print behind closed doors.

And this is the way it is supposed to be and actually is as science is a process.

You don't hear about these often, possibly because most aren't allowed to publish anything negative, only positive...it is called information suppression.

Probably overstated a bit. There are typically more that are submitted for publication than there's room for, so any publication, including even outside of p-r science, has to pick & choose what it's going to publish.

According to an article in "Scientific American" several years ago, they said that the last "creationist" paper submitted for publication here in the west goes all the way back to the 1950's. Indeed, one can see why, namely what's there to present evidence-wise?

It is also an industry which relies on reputation/credibility/to keep up with a certain image at all costs. One may lose their reputation, credibility, if they speak out or are brave enough to question certain things. Plus, if someone were to find sound evidence that counters years and years of sacrifice and hard work, reputation /credibility and image building... the human mind will tend to overlook this/ignore it, and continue to justify at all costs. Intelligence in the human is not exempt from this.

To a limited-- very limited in my observations-- extent, but you're correct. But let me refer back to "Scientific American" and just mention that if one looks near the opening section of the magazine, they'll see responses from scientists and lay that very often disagree with at least some components or conclusions from a previous article.

So, ego often works the other way as well, thus some being critical-- sometimes overly critical-- of someone else's work. But, still, better that than blind conformity.

You bring up some good points though, but I did feel a need to somewhat qualify them.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Evolution is change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. This is the fact. This is what no one really argues.

Now, the theory of evolution is a different breed of species, in which it starts to implant tons of philosophical thoughts, beliefs, faith, improbabilities, faith in time, ideas that can never be falsified/observed/tested which start to go astray from the scientific method....

In what specific ways do you claim that the theory of evolution hasn't been approached by employment of the scientific method?

many in which "scientists" differ and disagree on much of the fine print behind closed doors. You don't hear about these often, possibly because most aren't allowed to publish anything negative, only positive...it is called information suppression.

Have you been behind the closed doors? How many scientists do you know? How is it that you supposedly know all these secrets about what goes on behind closed doors?

Can you provide any evidence for your claim that scientists are only "allowed" to publish positive information, and what exactly you think constitutes "positive" information?

Only publish what you want the public to see. Most articles published are done in a clever manner, which can cause the common mind to see and read things that aren't there and claim inaccurate facts.

What do you mean by this? Do you have an example?

When these are pointed out to the faithful, fundamental community, it usually results in hostility and beasts coming out from the closet to defend their own beliefs. It gets pretty emotional. Rather than focus on the questioning at hand regarding what's been said... it generally turns to attacking character and attempting to make one feel inferior to their self-perceived superiority.

Maybe people get upset because you make strange claims about conspiracies to hide "negative" information (whatever that is).

It is also an industry which relies on reputation/credibility/to keep up with a certain image at all costs. One may lose their reputation, credibility, if they speak out or are brave enough to question certain things. Plus, if someone were to find sound evidence that counters years and years of sacrifice and hard work, reputation /credibility and image building... the human mind will tend to overlook this/ignore it, and continue to justify at all costs. Intelligence in the human is not exempt from this.

Scientists who provide evidence for their claims are recognized. Scientists that don't, or that fudge their data, are dismissed, as they should be. Scientists who come up with revolutionary ideas that are backed up with evidence achieve recognition for their work, often in the form of the Nobel Prize. Maybe you've heard of it?

 

[Jose Fly]

Exactly. So if people agree, or if people oppose, the beliefs are seen as validated. Have you noticed how many times the 'desperation' of 'evolutionists' was mentioned? Yet if the responses had stopped it would certainly have been seen as an ID 'win'.

Heads they wiin, tails we lose. How convenient.

 

[Jose Fly]

@metis @ Jose Fly @Olinda please understand that it is against forum rules to speak about other posters in the third person to specifically attack their character.

I'll ask again, and I'm sure you'll ignore it again.....how is it an "attack" to reflect your own statements back to you?

 

[Jose Fly]

How did we get from debate between creationism, abiogenesis and evolution, to that of nuclear science?

It's part of the Jehovah's Witness' overall beliefs about science and scientists. @Deeje has said that science is a "fraud factory" and just above she implied that scientists are under the control of Satan.

I mean......what else do we need to know?

 

[Jose Fly]

Now, the theory of evolution is a different breed of species, in which it starts to implant tons of philosophical thoughts, beliefs, faith, improbabilities, faith in time, ideas that can never be falsified/observed/tested which start to go astray from the scientific method.... many in which "scientists" differ and disagree on much of the fine print behind closed doors. You don't hear about these often, possibly because most aren't allowed to publish anything negative, only positive...it is called information suppression. Only publish what you want the public to see. Most articles published are done in a clever manner, which can cause the common mind to see and read things that aren't there and claim inaccurate facts. When these are pointed out to the faithful, fundamental community, it usually results in hostility and beasts coming out from the closet to defend their own beliefs. It gets pretty emotional. Rather than focus on the questioning at hand regarding what's been said... it generally turns to attacking character and attempting to make one feel inferior to their self-perceived superiority.

That's quite a series of very serious accusations against a large group of people. Any actual substance behind them?

 

[Profound Realization]

What "philosophical thoughts"?


What aspects of evolutionary theory are unfalsifiable?


"Behind closed doors"? There is lots of open discussion and debate over the finer points of evolutionary theory - just as there is with any other theory in science.


Inventing a conspiracy doesn't add credibility to your argument. I suggest you take your own advice and stick only to debating facts and not inventing conspiracies and resorting to playing the victim.


You do realize that there was (and continues to be) a vast, religious objection to evolutionary theory, right? That when evolution was first proposed it was rejected and derided by many people - and it wasn't until the facts actually came to light that the theory began to be accepted. What you have described is just the very prejudice that evolution had to fight against BEFORE being accepted.

Like most people who do not like an idea, you will off-handedly dismiss it when it is in the minority and call doing so "common sense" when the majority agree with you, but as soon as the idea catches on and starts becoming too popular to dismiss so easily you invent a conspiracy act like the idea is a cudgel wielded by bullies designed specifically to pacify you. And yet you also say you only want to debate facts and not emotions. You cannot have it both ways.

Either have a grown up discussion about the facts - and nothing else - or stop attempting to debate science in any capacity. Your choice.

If you cannot discern the "thought to have's," "could have's," from facts, there is no sense in discussing. There is nothing wrong with having philosophical thoughts in a theory.

Is there really a need to ask what can't be falsified on a large scale of time over billions of years?

Do you know what a conspiracy is? Enlighten me as to how I am playing a victim and inferred a conspiracy other than you trying to speak for another.

There are differences between evolution and evolution theory. The only prejudice invoked was on your own behalf speaking for me. I never mentioned anything regarding religion in the context you're using religion in.

I never dismissed it or claimed to not like the ideas. You speak of having honest discussions as if you are honest. Speak for yourself, and try not to speak for others or invent things they never said. That in my opinion, is emotion speaking through you. I also could care less about what is "popular," or conforming my beliefs and/or actions to what everyone else is doing or believing. Im glad that you mentioned, "ideas." Becoming aware of "ideas" separate from "facts" is a good thing. But you're correct, when the minds of the masses cannot separate or are aware of thoughts, beliefs from facts in its theory, it is very difficult to have any kind of peaceful, diligent, and fruitful discussion.

Well look at you, authoritarian making demands. You've raised too many red flags with your dictating demands, lying about things I've never said. Perhaps one day we can reconcile down the road.

 

[Profound Realization]

And this is the way it is supposed to be and actually is as science is a process.

Probably overstated a bit. There are typically more that are submitted for publication than there's room for, so any publication, including even outside of p-r science, has to pick & choose what it's going to publish.

According to an article in "Scientific American" several years ago, they said that the last "creationist" paper submitted for publication here in the west goes all the way back to the 1950's. Indeed, one can see why, namely what's there to present evidence-wise?

To a limited-- very limited in my observations-- extent, but you're correct. But let me refer back to "Scientific American" and just mention that if one looks near the opening section of the magazine, they'll see responses from scientists and lay that very often disagree with at least some components or conclusions from a previous article.

So, ego often works the other way as well, thus some being critical-- sometimes overly critical-- of someone else's work. But, still, better that than blind conformity.

You bring up some good points though, but I did feel a need to somewhat qualify them.

Thank you for the kind reply.

Agreed, I understand and am aware that there is little choice but to infer philosophy, ideas, beliefs, etc. into the theory. They have their hands full with many limitations, and for the most part in my opinion... do their best to work with what they can while trying to stay in the frame of scientific manner.

Personally, it is irrelevant to me about what "Creationist's" may or may not have submitted. It's more to me about sound science refuting or questioning philosophical science. Or even other philosophies refuting or questioning philosophical science. Hopefully done in a peaceful manner, such as your response to me.

It's often in the opinions or comment section, that other "scientists" respond.. rather than getting their own articles published.

 

[Deeje]

Here we have another person shooting the messenger in yet another failed attempt to distract from the topic at hand.
Do you have any evidence for macro-evolution that does not involve "belief" or "faith" in the words of others who also fail to provide substantiated proof for their beliefs?

"Watchtower Caught Dumping Chemicals" Watchtower Caught Dumping Chemicals

What does this article actually say......did you even read it?

"Chemicals found buried in Ulster

By BY ADAM BOSCH
Times Herald-Record
December 27, 2011 - 2:00 AM

SHAWANGUNK — State authorities are overseeing the investigation of chemicals and debris that were found buried at Watchtower Farms.
The state Department of Environmental Conservation said the pollution was found at three different sites on the 1,141-acre property. Each of the pollution sites covers roughly 2 acres. Matt Hubicki, a DEC environmental engineer, said hints of the contamination were found in 2007 while the Jehovah's Witnesses organization was building an expansion.
"They found some drums while digging the foundation for one of their residential facilities," Hubicki said. The group immediately reported the drums to the DEC.

An investigation found that several 55-gallon drums contained chemicals, including inks and solvents that were used at Watchtower's printing press off Red Mills Road. The gigantic printing operation dates back to the 1970s, and it produces all the religious literature the group distributes in North America.
The drums contained benzene, xylene and other chemicals that have been shown to affect human health. Construction debris and polluted soil was also uncovered at the sites.
DEC officials said it appears that Watchtower workers moved the toxic soil to these sites when printing chemicals spilled decades ago. Then they used farm machinery to aerate the soil and evaporate the contaminants.
An investigation that began this month will determine the scope of the pollution and clean-up options. Watchtower will have to pay for the cleanup; the cost has not yet been determined. The site is currently enrolled in the state Brownfield Cleanup Program. (Chemicals found buried in Ulster)

OK.....now what is this "report" actually saying....without the hype and without reading into this incident more than was actual truth?

"DEC environmental engineer, said hints of the contamination were found in 2007 while the Jehovah's Witnesses organization was building an expansion.
"They found some drums while digging the foundation for one of their residential facilities," Hubicki said. The group immediately reported the drums to the DEC. "

How much pollution are we actually talking about here? What is a "hint" exactly? How many is "several"?
Who reported this problem?...... "The group immediately reported the drums to the DEC". So we reported the problem and we would expect to pay for the clean up. We are going back decades and it appears as if the appropriate measures were taken at the time to minimize the damage.

Do you know what the media does to sensationalize stories? Then give that story to our opposers and you'd think we committed the worst environmental atrocity of the 20th century....for goodness sake.....this is pathetic!

Watch Tower Faces Clean-up Bill For "Ruining The Earth" - JWsurvey

Great headline eh? But what about the comments made by the DEC rep?

"Matt Hubicki, a representative for the Department of Environmental Conservation, revealed that the drums were found by Watchtower volunteers during construction works. “They found some drums while digging the foundation for one of their residential facilities” he told the newspaper. To their credit, it appears the Society immediately reported the find to the DEC."

So here we see the typical 'storm in a teacup'....'mountains made out of molehills'. Its on our property....we found the drums, we reported it to the authorities and we will pay to clean it up......so what's the big deal?

Seriously...you really haven't twigged yet as to the way these things are spoon fed to an all accepting judgmental public? Are you one of them?

 

[Deeje]

This has not been shown. Not at all. The opposite has been shown to you so many times it isn't even funny anymore.

It wasn't funny to begin with.....until you realize that the Emperor never actually had that beautiful suit on at all. Though perhaps he did have some underwear to demonstrate that he wasn't completely naked.

"Adaptation' could be the underwear. It wasn't the same fabric as the suit....

Scientists have evidence. You have faith.

LOL....I think it has been amply demonstrated here that science has "beliefs" based on "faith" in the interpretation of its "evidence"...... it has already admitted that it has no facts. No facts means no proof. Is that rocket science? If you have no facts, you have suggestions, not proof.

Those are not anywhere near being equal, as you have so aptly demonstrated throughout this thread.

One belief system is pitted against another.....but only one is claiming to have facts to back up its beliefs....I haven't seen any to date that were not assumptions based on educated guesswork. If you have proof, then please supply it. All the replies of late have been personal attacks attempting to deflect attention away from a very embarrassing truth. You are all squirming and its very obvious as to why.

Scientific inquiry results in knowledge of the world around us. Anything can be believed on faith and therefore it is not a reliable path to truth and knowledge.

Yes it does, and I have no problem at all with the many ways in which science helps us to understand the wonders of it all....it is when evolutionists claim that these things are all a product of undirected chance that it all falls apart.

Take this video about the orchid wasp and its relationship to a deceiving flower.....

Please watch this video and then tell me how evolution orchestrated this relationship.
Did the orchid plan this deception? Did the wasp get ripped off? If there is no real payoff for the wasp, then how come he is still getting "no satisfaction".

Thank you for showing us that in your thread here.

You are most welcome.

 

[Olinda]

@metis @ Jose Fly @Olinda please understand that it is against forum rules to speak about other posters in the third person to specifically attack their character.

You weren't specifically referred to, and you would need to show where exactly you believe your character was attacked.

It is very telling that the evolutionists here can't stay out of the kitchen, (we have to wonder why?) [/QUOTE ]

Perhaps a need to provide real information as opposed to unsupported and unsupportable allegations?

 

[Deeje]

You weren't specifically referred to, and you would need to show where exactly you believe your character was attacked.

I don't need to.....the mods are taking care of it.

 

[Olinda]

I don't need to.....the mods are taking care of it.

Of course, but my question was sincere. Do you apply Matthew 18:15?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

If you cannot discern the "thought to have's," "could have's," from facts, there is no sense in discussing. There is nothing wrong with having philosophical thoughts in a theory.

Then why did you bring it up as a negative aspect of evolutionary theory, and why can't you give a few examples? If uncertainties count as "philosophies" to you, then you might as well consider all of science philosophy.

Is there really a need to ask what can't be falsified on a large scale of time over billions of years?

Yes.

Do you know what a conspiracy is? Enlighten me as to how I am playing a victim and inferred a conspiracy other than you trying to speak for another.

Because you're saying that the popularity and pervasiveness of the theory is not down to its credibility, but because of some cabal of academics suppressing objection. This is ridiculous nonsense.

There are differences between evolution and evolution theory. The only prejudice invoked was on your own behalf speaking for me. I never mentioned anything regarding religion in the context you're using religion in.

I never said you did. I merely pointed out that science overcame an overwhelming religious bias in order to become accepted as it is. It was the SUBJECT of suppression, not the suppressor.

I never dismissed it or claimed to not like the ideas.

You said repeatedly that evolution "strays from the scientific method" and that its proponents are actively engaged in suppressing dissent.

You speak of having honest discussions as if you are honest. Speak for yourself, and try not to speak for others or invent things they never said. That in my opinion, is emotion speaking through you. I also could care less about what is "popular," or conforming my beliefs and/or actions to what everyone else is doing or believing.

Then why did you bring it up? You're obviously very confused.

(IRRELEVANT ASIDE: It's "couldN'T care less", not "COULD care less" - the whole point of the phrase is to indicate that you care so little that you "couldn't care less". If you COULD "care less" then that indicates you, at least, care a little bit. Not that I think this is a knock on your intelligence as much as a common misstatement of the saying that I am determined to stamp out.)

Im glad that you mentioned, "ideas." Becoming aware of "ideas" separate from "facts" is a good thing. But you're correct, when the minds of the masses cannot separate or are aware of thoughts, beliefs from facts in its theory, it is very difficult to have any kind of peaceful, diligent, and fruitful discussion.

Well look at you, authoritarian making demands. You've raised too many red flags with your dictating demands, lying about things I've never said. Perhaps one day we can reconcile down the road.

Despite the fact that you just spent an entire post telling people that it's wrong to debate emotions over facts, as soon as I tell you that's exactly what you're doing and say that this means you're ill-equipped to debate science I'm suddenly an authoritarian.

Hyperbole doesn't help your argument any more than inventing conspiracies does. And I continue to note a complete lack of actual facts from your posts in favour of rhetoric, in spite of me explicitly asking for facts multiple times.

Once again, if you can't debate facts, you shouldn't debate science. I will continue to assert that until it sinks in.

 

[atanu]

It's called "sexual selection", Deeje. It's been known about since Darwin's time, but apparently it's still news to you. Google is your friend here. That is, if you have any honest desire to become informed of that which you blindly condemn.

Can sexual selection be purposeless?

 

[Deeje]

Of course, but my question was sincere. Do you apply Matthew 18:15?

If all else fails quote scripture....even when one does not claim to be Christian? Seriously?

Matthew 18:15:
“Moreover, if your brother commits a sin, go and reveal his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother."

I'm sorry.....I didn't realize that you were my "brother".

Have you not been here long enough to know the rules? It was hardly a private conversation you lot were having at my expense.

This was just to let the bullies know that its not OK. Pick on whatever you like about the topic, but leave the personal comments out of it. It was not light hearted jibes.....was it?

And none of you have given us any substantiated evidence that macro-evolution ever happened, despite almost 5,000 posts. What is that telling the readers here? I think it tells us that evolutionists are pretty much out of ammo and that all they have left is personal attacks.

 

[Deeje]

How has the ToE turned intelligent scientists into dogmatic, often snapping and snarling opponents of any other viewpoint?
Many evolutionary scientists became united in their efforts to forbid any school classroom instruction contrary to their own views. They insist on teaching evolution to school children who do not have the maturity or the knowledge to challenge what science presents as fact.

Does the theory of evolution merit this kind of fanatical support, which seeks to silence all opposing ideas and to indoctrinate children from a young age? When religious people take such a position, they are called bigots and fanatics, but scientists seem to escape those charges for some reason.

Many science students are looking for honest answers to their questions about the origin and purpose of life. As the evidence is now contested and more are questioning the interpretation of fossil evidence and other lines of enquiry, the stale traditions of evolution have to go on the defensive.....and it is very interesting to see what direction that defensiveness is going.