The Mystery Thread

[Subduction Zone]

I just did.

Let me clarify:


You cannot honestly make that claim. When a person is willingly ignorant that person's comments on what he or she is not willing to learn about are pure arrogance. Corrections of the error that person makes are a kindness, not an example of arrogance.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I think that for the Bible believer the ultimate question is, who cares? The only reason I ever got involved with the dispute is that those promoting evolution are so arrogant. There is only one possible truth here, they seem to say, and it trumps your belief.

Otherwise, why on earth would I care?

I find this to be the opposite. Those professing belief in an inerrant Bible and in the creation story of Genesis and a depiction of actual events often come across as very arrogant and closed off to me. I find this disturbing as both a Christian and as a scientist.

How can something believed on faith be demonstrated? How does attempting that compare to demonstrations based on evidence?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Let me clarify:


You cannot honestly make that claim. When a person is willingly ignorant that person's comments on what he or she is not willing to learn about are pure arrogance. Corrections of the error that person makes are a kindness, not an example of arrogance.

I think so. If you dismiss what another can demonstrate based on the best information we have, then it is the height of arrogance.

 

[TheresOnlyNow]

Take it easy. Take it slow. No fuss.

First question. Is it okay for me to reject evolution while accepting other tenets of science?

First, love your avatar picture.
Second, to answer your first question. Sure, why not. Even Darwin was perplexed by the Cambrian explosion. And contrary to the legend, Darwin did believe in God.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think I told you this story once before, so I'll just give the highlights. My father, brother and I once saw a UFO. To this day, I don't have any idea what it was. Some people go right to aliens and alien spacecraft, but all I can say is that I saw something, it was flying and behaving unusually and I don't know what it was. There may be a good explanation for it, but with only the information of my observation, it wasn't enough to provide that explanation. Just because it was a UFO, jumping to alien civilizations as the explanation leaves out many other, and often much more valid explanations, without benefit of even checking into them.

I think a lot of that happens. I've done it myself. I know, because I've had to eat my own words.

You are correct in your approach. To many people think UFO means flying saucer. When it reality it is something unknown as you said. Even in the middle of a city one can see such objects. I saw what was almost certainly a jet airliner in a suburb, but there was something about the way that it was weird so that I cannot say for 100% sure that it was.

 

[Jollybear]

I missed responding to this.

I don't know of anyone that can prove that there is design in nature, so I couldn't point to that as evidence for the existence of God. I might think it and I might believe it, but that isn't evidence that I can point to and share as definitive.

I think the evidence for design is not imaginary.

I don't know if other peoples spiritual experiences happened. How could I demonstrate them or my own?

Ive had my own, just because i cannot demonstrate them to others dont mean i havent had them.

NDE's and ESP may not exist. These supposed phenomena could have alternate explanations and in some cases they do. How can you tell if they are real or the result of something else?

How else do you explain them?

None of this is something I can use as evidence to explain or support my personal beliefs. In my view, that leaves me with faith alone, which is all I have.

Why do you have faith? What are your reasons?

I agree. But on what basis do these organizations disagree. Is it on the evidence, the logic of the theoretical structure or quality of the work conducted in testing the theory or is it on some religious or philosophical grounds?

Its on the basis of all of that list.

 

[Subduction Zone]

First, love your avatar picture.
Second, to answer your first question. Sure, why not. Even Darwin was perplexed by the Cambrian explosion. And contrary to the legend, Darwin did believe in God.

When he developed the theory he was still a Christian, at the end of his life he was an agnostic and probably an atheist. He openly stated that he was not a Christian any longer.

 

[Earthling]

It really depends on what means by “tenets of science”.

And it also depends on what you mean by “evolution”.

I find that creationists are biased and idiots, who often confused “evolution” with “abiogenesis”.

When they are talking about “evolution”, they are actually talking about is “abiogenesis”.

Abiogenesis is about how life first formed from inorganic matters into living organic matter, hence abiogenesis is a study about the origin of first life.

Abiogenesis is still a work-in-progress hypothesis, because they are not done with the testings, and there are several different versions of abiogenesis, and they have yet to conclusively determine which version is the correct one.

Evolution, on the other hand, is not focused on the origin of first life, but about how life can change over time (but not “time” as in days or years, but rather “time” as in generations), due to one of evolutionary mechanisms, eg natural selection, or genetic drift, or mutation, etc. Evolution can result in biodiversity through speciation.

For evolution to happen, life must already exist, because evolution can only occur through genetics, in which older generation will pass the necessary genes, allele and DNA/RNA, etc to the next generation, and through a number of generations.

Unlike abiogenesis, evolution is not a hypothesis, but a working “Scientific Theory”, and each of the evolutionary mechanisms have already be rigorously tested, and thereby following the strict requirements of Scientific Method.

The “idiot” part comes when no matter how many times to explain evolution isn’t abiogenesis, and evolution isn’t about the origin of first life, creationists will not learn these differences, and will continue to make the same mistakes, over, over and over again.

Stubborn ignorance and unwillingness to learn from one’s mistakes, are not attractive traits of creationists.

So what are you really talking about, Earthling?

Are you really talking about life evolving over time or are you really talking about the origin of first life? Evolution or Abiogenesis? Which is it?

What I mean by "tenets of science" is science in general, the branches, fields and disciplines of science. I personally have never had much interest in science. I let it go on without any input from me. Atheists get upset over that because science is a part of all of our lives, and yes, I know this. I have nothing against science, even when it comes to conclusions that are contrary to my faith. Atheists don't understand that I disagree with science and yet use a computer, or have a bi-ventricular ICD. I appreciate those things, much like I appreciate that my car runs smoothly without becoming a certified mechanic. They do their thing, I do mine.

I have no trouble with a Buddhist, or anyone of any other religion in much the same way. It isn't necessary for me to argue the point of God's existence with a Buddhist or what a god is with a Taoist, unless the argument is thrown in my face. I know a considerable amount about those other religions as well as evolution. I understand the differences you point out, but like religion I try to refrain from terminology exclusive to those things, religion and science because I think they at best can be a distraction, and at worst, deceptive.

I disagree with science when it disagrees with the Bible because I see science, as noble a pursuit as it is, the imperfect efforts of man, and in constant flux. Theology is the same thing. Those disagreements mean very little to me. They aren't important.

In my opinion, if I let science do it's thing in peace, then why can't atheists who are science minded allow me the same. Why do they have to harass me as if I'm some pariah because I don't agree with their science? Or even allow that if I am a pariah just leave it at that.

I know Christianity has a blood thirsty history of apostasy and ignorance and superstition. I speak of these things because it's important to recognize history so as not to repeat it. I think Christendom is an abomination which will be destroyed by God before it destroys itself and everything else along with it, but I'm not that. I don't condone that behavior.

I disagree with science sometimes. I'm not going to change that until I see reason for it.

 

[TheresOnlyNow]

When he developed the theory he was still a Christian, at the end of his life he was an agnostic and probably an atheist. He openly stated that he was not a Christian any longer.

I didn't say he was a Christian.

 

[Jollybear]

What I mean by "tenets of science" is science in general, the branches, fields and disciplines of science. I personally have never had much interest in science. I let it go on without any input from me. Atheists get upset over that because science is a part of all of our lives, and yes, I know this. I have nothing against science, even when it comes to conclusions that are contrary to my faith. Atheists don't understand that I disagree with science and yet use a computer, or have a bi-ventricular ICD. I appreciate those things, much like I appreciate that my car runs smoothly without becoming a certified mechanic. They do their thing, I do mine.

I have no trouble with a Buddhist, or anyone of any other religion in much the same way. It isn't necessary for me to argue the point of God's existence with a Buddhist or what a god is with a Taoist, unless the argument is thrown in my face. I know a considerable amount about those other religions as well as evolution. I understand the differences you point out, but like religion I try to refrain from terminology exclusive to those things, religion and science because I think they at best can be a distraction, and at worst, deceptive.

I disagree with science when it disagrees with the Bible because I see science, as noble a pursuit as it is, the imperfect efforts of man, and in constant flux. Theology is the same thing. Those disagreements mean very little to me. They aren't important.

In my opinion, if I let science do it's thing in peace, then why can't atheists who are science minded allow me the same. Why do they have to harass me as if I'm some pariah because I don't agree with their science? Or even allow that if I am a pariah just leave it at that.

I know Christianity has a blood thirsty history of apostasy and ignorance and superstition. I speak of these things because it's important to recognize history so as not to repeat it. I think Christendom is an abomination which will be destroyed by God before it destroys itself and everything else along with it, but I'm not that. I don't condone that behavior.

I disagree with science sometimes. I'm not going to change that until I see reason for it.

And heres my thing too, i get sick and tired of hearing athiests push there worldview as if it was science and its NOTHING of the sort. There naturalistic foundation is just as much faith, actually MORE faith then what we have!

 

[Earthling]

And heres my thing too, i get sick and tired of hearing athiests push there worldview as if it was science and its NOTHING of the sort. There naturalistic foundation is just as much faith, actually MORE faith then what we have!

I agree with that 100% but I've learned that it's more work than I care to take on to really make that point clear. I have my plate full with 6,000 years of Bible history and religion etc. I am somewhat amused when someone on the forums describes themselves as "biologists" or "scientists." I have some advice for them: don't waste your time on my beliefs, get busy doing science.

I try not to get bogged down in the Evolution vs. Creation debate, but I do wish I had the time to learn more about it. I just don't have the interest or time to do it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I didn't say he was a Christian.

what God do you think he believed in?

 

[gnostic]

I think design in nature, NDEs, spiritual experiences, ESPs, all of that is evidence for God.

I have not heard of either NDE or ESP being “evidences” for Design.

But regardless of design or not, there have been lot of research in parapsychology during the 1960s, 70s and 80s by the Soviets and Americans, which included psychics, telepathy, ESP, and the occult. They carried out exhaustive experiments, but what evidences did they find?

The evidences they found were the exact opposite of the claims of paranormal, of ESP, or remote viewing, of medium, and so on. There weren't much evidences for parapsychology at all, which ended up parapsychology being pseudoscience.

Both the US and Soviet wasted time and money on a dude.

The only people making money on ESP and other psychic abilities are fictional stories, whether they be on books, comics, TV shows or films. It is a tens of millions of dollar industry.

And then there are other groups, who take advantages of naive and fools, gaining money through fraud.

 

[Jollybear]

I agree with that 100% but I've learned that it's more work than I care to take on to really make that point clear. I have my plate full with 6,000 years of Bible history and religion etc. I am somewhat amused when someone on the forums describes themselves as "biologists" or "scientists." I have some advice for them: don't waste your time on my beliefs, get busy doing science.

I try not to get bogged down in the Evolution vs. Creation debate, but I do wish I had the time to learn more about it. I just don't have the interest or time to do it.

Yea, it does take time learning about it. In the past ive read mountains of information on it which most of it i dont even remember. But, regardless, all one really needs is to hear there BEST evidence and thats it. Refute that or counter it, thats pretty much it.

I think so much articles and books out there are just so full of filler information. Im the type where i just want to cut to the chase, lol.

 

[Jollybear]

I have not heard of either NDE or ESP being “evidences” for Design.

Misunderstanding. Nature has design. NDEs have God experiences. God is the designer.

But regardless of design or not, there have been lot of research in parapsychology during the 1960s, 70s and 80s by the Soviets and Americans, which included psychics, telepathy, ESP, and the occult. They carried out exhaustive experiments, but what evidences did they find?

The evidences they found were the exact opposite of the claims of paranormal, of ESP, or remote viewing, of medium, and so on. There weren't much evidences for parapsychology at all, which ended up parapsychology being pseudoscience.

Both the US and Soviet wasted time and money on a dude.

The only people making money on ESP and other psychic abilities are fictional stories, whether they be on books, comics, TV shows or films. It is a tens of millions of dollar industry.

And then there are other groups, who take advantages of naive and fools, gaining money through fraud.

I dont agree with that conclusion. In fact im debating in another thread on remote viewing currently.

 

[gnostic]

In my opinion, if I let science do it's thing in peace, then why can't atheists who are science minded allow me the same. Why do they have to harass me as if I'm some pariah because I don't agree with their science? Or even allow that if I am a pariah just leave it at that.

Actually, it is the creationists who don't want peace, Earthling.

You know of Discovery Institute, don't you?

They are the ones spending millions of dollars on propaganda, to promote Intelligent Design as "science endeavour" for how life began on Earth, but ID is just another name for Christian creationism.

They are filled with most Evangelist Protestants with some Catholics. The Discovery Institute has nothing to do with science.

They are not only promoting ID, but the information they provide on evolution, are nothing more misinformation and misrepresentation of what is evolution and what isn't evolution.

What the Discovery Institute tried to do, is to have public schools and universities to teach ID in science classrooms and lectures, but ID isn't science. They tried to get politicians, school boards and lawyers to force ID to be taught in school as science. And they have failed remarkably in the courtroom in the civil case of the Kitzmiller vs Dover Area School District.

Can Intelligent Design be taught in schools and universities?

Sure, they can, but in theology subjects, bible studies or comparative mythology, or whatever, but not in biology or science classes.

 

[Jollybear]

Actually, it is the creationists who don't want peace, Earthling.

You know of Discovery Institute, don't you?

They are the ones spending millions of dollars on propaganda, to promote Intelligent Design as "science endeavour" for how life began on Earth, but ID is just another name for Christian creationism.

They are filled with most Evangelist Protestants with some Catholics. The Discovery Institute has nothing to do with science.

They are not only promoting ID, but the information they provide on evolution, are nothing more misinformation and misrepresentation of what is evolution and what isn't evolution.

What the Discovery Institute tried to do, is to have public schools and universities to teach ID in science classrooms and lectures, but ID isn't science. They tried to get politicians, school boards and lawyers to force ID to be taught in school as science. And they have failed remarkably in the courtroom in the civil case of the Kitzmiller vs Dover Area School District.

Can Intelligent Design be taught in schools and universities?

Sure, they can, but in theology subjects, bible studies or comparative mythology, or whatever, but not in biology or science classes.

Why do you think evolution has more evidence then ID? i think ID has more. But at a MINUMUM, why dont you agree ID has equel evidence?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have not heard of either NDE or ESP being “evidences” for Design.

But regardless of design or not, there have been lot of research in parapsychology during the 1960s, 70s and 80s by the Soviets and Americans, which included psychics, telepathy, ESP, and the occult. They carried out exhaustive experiments, but what evidences did they find?

The evidences they found were the exact opposite of the claims of paranormal, of ESP, or remote viewing, of medium, and so on. There weren't much evidences for parapsychology at all, which ended up parapsychology being pseudoscience.

Both the US and Soviet wasted time and money on a dude.

The only people making money on ESP and other psychic abilities are fictional stories, whether they be on books, comics, TV shows or films. It is a tens of millions of dollar industry.

And then there are other groups, who take advantages of naive and fools, gaining money through fraud.

The Amazing Randi did quite well for himself debunking those sort of frauds.

 

[Jollybear]

Now that you have understood the theory of evolution, here is the evidence for it. Follow my posts in this thread.
Evidence of Evolution that was presented but never addressed

Ok, i read it.....i dont see that as proof, i can see how you might see it as evidence. But, i see it as inference and explanations to certain data and species.

Heres an article that has already done the work of countering these things.

Is Tiktaalik Evolution’s Greatest Missing Link?

 

[gnostic]

Why do you think evolution has more evidence then ID? i think ID has more. But at a MINUMUM, why dont you agree ID has equel evidence?

The difference between Evolution and Intelligent Design, is following the requirements of science:

1. Falsifiability
2. Scientific Method
3. Peer Review

ID failed in all 3 of these requirements.

Michael Behe, the chief expert witness for ID in the Kitzmiller vs Dover Area School District, admitted that none of the ID literature were ever peer reviewed, including Behe's own Irreducible Complexity and his book Darwin's Black Box.

While Philip Johnson and Stephen Meyer are considered the founder of Intelligent Design, Johnson have no qualification in ANY SCIENCE and Meyer was a former geophysicist, which leave Behe as the biggest name in biology, or more precisely biochemistry for the Discovery Institute.

The problem is that like Johnson and Meyer, Behe is not known for his integrity.

He even lie to the court that one of the names listed in his book as critical reviewer on his Black Box, Dr Michael Atchison, who was also like Behe, a biochemist, has read his manuscript before being published. When in fact, a letter from Atchison revealed that he never read Behe's Darwin Black Box.

If Atchison hasn't read Behe's book, then it is not possible for Atchison to review Behe's book.

Behe also admitted that he has never tested his paper on Irreducible Complexity, which means he failed in my second point "Scientific Method".

Even the university he worked as a biochemist professor, while respect his personal belief, don't condone him teaching his Irreducible Complexity to students, when his work on Irreducible Complexity is untested and unfalsifiable, which mean he failed in the 1st point "Falsifiability".

The leading scientists in Intelligent Design are Meyer and Behe, but neither has presented any hypothesis, that are falsifiable, testable, and peer reviewed.

And in order to test ID, you would have to be able to test Designer.

But if the Designer is beyond everyone ability to test, measure or detect (or observe), then how could ID have any evidence?