• 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!

Scientific Evidence for Universal Common Descent

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jim

Jim

Nets of Wonder
tas8831 said:
So you are not a serious discussant.

"I’m not sure if you got my point, that according to that Pew survey, a weighted percentage of at least 6%, and possibly 99%, of the sample of working Ph.D. biomedical scientists agreed that God did it."

Yup... not serious...
Got it.
Click to expand...
Are you disagreeing with that? Did you look at the the reports? What limits do you think can be put on the percentages? Do you think that 6% of working Ph.D. biomedical scientists think that evolution does not happen through natural causes?
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Jim said:
Are you disagreeing with that? Did you look at the the reports? What limits do you think can be put on the percentages? Do you think that 6% of working Ph.D. biomedical scientists think that evolution does not happen through natural causes?
Click to expand...

You do not seem to understand how this works. You made a claim. You were asked to substantiate it. Instead you tried to shift the burden of proof. That amounts to admitting that you were wrong.
 
Jim

Jim

Nets of Wonder
Subduction Zone said:
You do not seem to understand how this works. You made a claim. You were asked to substantiate it. Instead you tried to shift the burden of proof. That amounts to admitting that you were wrong.
Click to expand...
I’m not admitting that I was wrong. Do you think that I was? Are you disagreeing with what I said? Would you like me to explain my reasoning?
 
Last edited:
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Jim said:
I’m not admitting that I was wrong. Do you think that I was? Are you disagreeing with what I said? Would you like me to explain my reasoning?
Click to expand...
in effect you did whether you realize it or not. Shifting the burden of proof is a big no no. Don't do it.
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Jim said:
Can you give me a specific example of a speciation model that is widely used, or that has been used for any practical purpose?
Click to expand...
I do believe that the changing flu vaccines are dependent upon such a model. It is not perfect, but it is better than nothing.
 
Jim

Jim

Nets of Wonder
Subduction Zone said:
You do not seem to understand how this works. You made a claim. You were asked to substantiate it. Instead you tried to shift the burden of proof. That amounts to admitting that you were wrong.
Click to expand...
I know the rules of your game. I don’t see anything in the forum rules that requires me to play it.
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Jim said:
I know the rules of your game. I don’t see anything in the forum rules that requires me to play it.
Click to expand...
it is not "my game".

The fact is that shifting the burden of proof is dishonest. The only reason to do so is it one realizes that he or she is wrong. That is why it is equivalent to admitting to be in error.
 
Jim

Jim

Nets of Wonder
Subduction Zone said:
it is not "my game".

The fact is that shifting the burden of proof is dishonest. The only reason to do so is it one realizes that he or she is wrong. That is why it is equivalent to admitting to be in error.
Click to expand...
I’m not admitting that I was wrong. Do you think that I was? Would you like me to explain my reasoning?
 
Jim

Jim

Nets of Wonder
Subduction Zone said:
I do believe that the changing flu vaccines are dependent upon such a model. It is not perfect, but it is better than nothing.
Click to expand...
That’s a wonderful example. If any speciation model is actually being used for that purpose, successfully or not, it’s a wonderful example of practical application.
 
Thief

Thief

Rogue Theologian
Subduction Zone said:
Nope. Now you must define "spirit" and provide evidence that it exists. Until you do your belief is no different from a belief in Pixies .
Click to expand...
there will never be....
a photo, a fingerprint, an equation or repeatable experiment

science will take you to the point of decision

it will not give you the answer

substance does not create the spirit

Spirit first
 
Jim

Jim

Nets of Wonder
@Jose Fly Reviewing your posts to me, I want to try to explain what I’ve been doing in this thread. I’m not trying to debate with anyone about anything, or to prove anything to anyone. I’m trying to have some friendly conversations with people on all sides. That includes saying what I think sometimes, about what people are saying, and sometimes asking questions to understand better what people are thinking and doing. Then when people post comments and questions about that, sometimes I respond to them to try to clarify what I’m saying and not saying. Sometimes when it looks to me like they’re misquoting me or misrepresenting what I said, I try to correct it.

At this point it seems more likely to me that humans and other species have common ancestors, but in my view that is not proven by how many people with science degrees think that it’s true, by how useful it is to think of it that way, or by statements of professional associations about what should and should not be taught in public schools. It looks to me like there are no solid grounds for thinking that it actually did happen that way. I would agree though to consider it part of history if there’s enough agreement about that among paleontologists. I’m leaving “enough” undefined for now.

It looks to me like this whole debate is just a skirmish in the debating about what should and should not be taught in public schools. On that question, I agree with teaching evolution, and not creation, not because I think one is true and the other false. It’s because it looks to me like evolution theory is very useful and widely used in research and technology, and creation theory is not. I don’t see anyone even claiming that creation theory is useful and widely used in research and technology. It looks to me like the only reason for wanting creation to be taught is to counteract evolution theory being used in public education to discredit some religious beliefs. That might be happening, but I don’t see that as a reason for teaching creation. In one of my posts I discussed some ideas for what to do about that, if it is happening.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top