The Mystery Thread

[sun rise]

It is because evolution is so deceptive that we suspect that it's a masterpiece from someone called Satan.

This is the genesis of your reasoning backwards from your a priori conclusion.

To ignore evolution is to disbelieve in paleontology, biology and other branches of science. Based on your conclusion, I suspect you also don't accept physics, cosmology and even more branches of science since evolution is intimately tied to the formation of the earth, the history of the universe and much much more.

 

[Jollybear]

It's not an appeal to popularity, just a consensus of the methodology. If someone came up with a superior method of explaining the observations, everyone would jump ship.

I still think its wise to question the methodology-consensus.

If we agree with consensus on methodology before fully understanding what wer agreeing to, thats appeal to popularity.

How is it not?

Im a big believer in just ignoring all that and just focusing on the data itself.

Be the lone ranger.

 

[Quintessence]

Don't be so naive.

Excuse me? Why is it naive to assume people know basics of how personal decision making intersects with social norms when folks learn this as adolescents (or younger)?

 

[Willamena]

I still think its wise to question the methodology-consensus.

If we agree with consensus on methodology before fully understanding what wer agreeing to, thats appeal to popularity.

How is it not?

Im a big believer in just ignoring all that and just focusing on the data itself.

Be the lone ranger.

For the most part, we fully understand what we're agreeing to. We learn it in Grades 7-9.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Take it easy. Take it slow. No fuss.

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

Not if you want to be intellectually consistent. The scientific method that enables us to harness electrons so we can communicate on this cite is the exact same scientific method that has determines the legitimacy of the ToE. You can't accept one because it's convenient for you and reject the other because it conflicts with your theological claims.

 

[Jollybear]

For the most part, we fully understand what we're agreeing to. We learn it in Grades 7-9.

Do we truely understand it? Or are we brain washed and most people just accept what there told?

And you know, young people, grade 7-9 are more susceptible.

And heres another thing, in school, wer not encouraged to critically think, wer just told what to think, then put down the "right answers" on paper so we pass a grade.

 

[Willamena]

Do we truely understand it? Or are we brain washed and most people just accept what there told?

And you know, young people, grade 7-9 are more susceptible.

And heres another thing, in school, wer not encouraged to critically think, wer just told what to think, then put down the "right answers" on paper so we pass a grade.

My schooling was less malignable.

 

[Jollybear]

My schooling was less malignable.

They do it in very subtle ways. The devil is a master deciever. They want your brain. If they got that, then they got uncritical, obydient people and that works well for those in power.

They dont deserve your mind, the first stage of freedom is first to free our minds, then this leads to our life being freed of there evil system.

 

[Willamena]

They do it in very subtle ways. The devil is a master deciever. They want your brain. If they got that, then they got uncritical, obydient people and that works well for those in power.

They dont deserve your mind, the first stage of freedom is first to free our minds, then this leads to our life being freed of there evil system.

Seems they're not the only ones.

 

[Jollybear]

Seems they're not the only ones.

Right, theres more. Its a web, a societal web of many deceptions. And the spider wants to tangle everyone in it, so there not free. Then the spider feeds and grows. The spider is the power structure. It feeds on those it inslaves.

 

[sayak83]

Do we truely understand it? Or are we brain washed and most people just accept what there told?

And you know, young people, grade 7-9 are more susceptible.

And heres another thing, in school, wer not encouraged to critically think, wer just told what to think, then put down the "right answers" on paper so we pass a grade.

I truly understand it.

 

[sayak83]

They do it in very subtle ways. The devil is a master deciever. They want your brain. If they got that, then they got uncritical, obydient people and that works well for those in power.

They dont deserve your mind, the first stage of freedom is first to free our minds, then this leads to our life being freed of there evil system.

You might be the one who is deluded -by your faith in untrue things and entities.

 

[sayak83]

I have no interest whatsoever in science. The question was intended to establish whether or no one (anyone) could reject the theory of Evolution while accepting other disciplines. In other words if you reject Evolution do you reject science? I know of respected scientists in various fields, including Biology, who reject evolution and accept the teachings of the Bible that I believe.

Is one rejecting multiplicative maths if she accepts that 2*2 = 4 but rejects 2*3=6?

 

[Jollybear]

You might be the one who is deluded -by your faith in untrue things and entities.

If im delusional, i certainly dont know it, for if i did, then id no longer be delusional.

You said you understand it, tell me then?

 

[Windwalker]

I think going by consensus is the appeal to popularity. Its also appeal to authority when refering to scientists.

This is wrong. When citing science, this is not at all the same as appealing to popularity, that "everyone believes it, so it must be true". This is absolutely disingenuous on your part. Citing experts in a technical field is what you should do, when you are not educated in that field yourself!

Using you're analogy, it would be like you talking to a computer expert who says you have a virus on your computer, and telling them, "Well, that's your opinion. I believe it's an evil spirit, and God will cast it out through my prayers over my monitor. My opinion is just a valid as yours". That is how absurd this all is, equating the level of expertise in these given fields to nothing more than "their opinion". Absurd.

Question. What is the role of experts, and do they know more about things than you do in their given areas of expertise? Bonus question. Should you listen to them, take them seriously, or blow them off as not really knowing any better than you about these things?

 

[Jollybear]

This is wrong. When citing science, this is not at all the same as appealing to popularity, that "everyone believes it, so it must be true". This is absolutely disingenuous on your part. Citing experts in a technical field is what you should do, when you are not educated in that field yourself!

Using you're analogy, it would be like you talking to a computer expert who says you have a virus on your computer, and telling them, "Well, that's your opinion. I believe it's an evil spirit, and God will cast it out through my prayers over my monitor. My opinion is just a valid as yours". That is how absurd this all is, equating the level of expertise in these given fields to nothing more than "their opinion". Absurd.

Question. What is the role of experts, and do they know more about things than you do in their given areas of expertise?

Let me clarify what im saying. Im not saying its wrong to cite an "expert". I do it myself. So, thats not what im talking about.

Im talking about, if someone is going to cite an "expert" then they need to cite the "experts" EVIDENCE and arguments, rather then the "experts" opinion.

If anything i could care less if they omitted the expert and there name, i just care about the evidence instead.

Ill build on your illustration. Computer guy says theres a virus, i say theres a demon. Ok, hes the expert, im not, ok, now mr expert, give me your evidence its not a demon and just a virus?

You see? The evidence, argument is the only thing that matters.

 

[Windwalker]

Im talking about, if someone is going to cite an "expert" then they need to cite the "experts" EVIDENCE and arguments, rather then the "experts" opinion.

The expert's opinion is typically based upon the experts evidence and arguments. If they are just making crap up, speculating without any real evidental basis for their opinion, the word we use for them is "hacks". Wannabes who pretend to be experts, but lack the tools and disciplines necessary to actually be an expert.

Are you suggesting evolutionary scientists are really just "hacks"?

If anything i could care less if they omitted the expert and there name, i just care about the evidence instead.

Well, there are tons and tons of these available for anyone qualified to inspect the research themselves. Typically you and I rely on other experts to do checks against the works of others, and then consider their opinions as a whole. Obviously their opinions, being informed and based on data and careful research, has a million times more weight than your's or mine in these areas. Yet, you feel vindicated to dismiss them? How? Is that showing integrity, applying the dismissal when you don't personally like it, yet agreeing when you do? This is bald dishonesty. It lacks integrity. It lacks truth.

Ill build on your illustration. Computer guy says theres a virus, i say theres a demon. Ok, hes the expert, im not, ok, now mr expert, give me your evidence its not a demon and just a virus?

Easy. Find out which virus it is, look at the symptoms, confirm it's a virus. The believer's approach? Pray over it. It doesn't go away. Blame the engineer for his lack of faith in God.

 

[Jollybear]

The expert's opinion is typically based upon the experts evidence and arguments. If they are just making crap up, speculating without any real evidental basis for their opinion, the word we use for them is "hacks". Wannabes who pretend to be experts, but lack the tools and disciplines necessary to actually be an expert. Are you suggesting evolutionary scientists are really just "hacks"?

Heres what im saying: when you got a combination of bias+inferences to data+stupid+some ignorence+some dishonesty+dogmatic assumptions+wanting to fit in with your science peers, this = bull crap results.

Well, there are tons and tons of these available for anyone qualified to inspect the research themselves. Typically you and I rely on other experts to do checks against the works of others, and then consider their opinions as a whole. Obviously their opinions, being informed and based on data and careful research, has a million times more weight than your's or mine in these areas. Yet, you feel vindicated to dismiss them? How? Is that showing integrity, applying the dismissal when you don't personally like it, yet agreeing when you do? This is bald dishonesty. It lacks integrity. It lacks truth.

This discussion hasnt even lifted barely off the ground yet and already your calling me dishonest and assuming i havent read or looked at stuff i dont agree with.

If i dont agree with something i have reason to, not just volition.

Easy. Find out which virus it is, look at the symptoms, confirm it's a virus. The believer's approach? Pray over it. It doesn't go away. Blame the engineer for his lack of faith in God.

I dont pray over computer viruses. But, in the case of spiritual realities i believe thats real.

 

[Woberts]

No.
Evolution is a fact, whether you choose to believe it or not.
Sorry.

 

[Woberts]

Heres what im saying: when you got a combination of bias+inferences to data+stupid+some ignorence+some dishonesty+dogmatic assumptions+wanting to fit in with your science peers, this = bull crap results.

Do you assume without evidence that this happens with all the sciences, or just this one?