The Mystery Thread

[TransmutingSoul]

Take it easy. Take it slow. No fuss.

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

It may be you have found a better explanation about evolution, other than what the current science offers. Thus that would be fine.

You would just have an open mind on the subject until science can prove it undebatably so.

Regards Tony

 

[Earthling]

It may be you have found a better explanation about evolution, other than what the current science offers. Thus that would be fine.

You would just have an open mind on the subject until science can prove it undebatably so.

Regards Tony

Good advice. Except for that the atheists insist it already has been.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You labor under the delusion that if evidence agrees with you or science it is right and if it doesn't it's wrong. That's not very scientific is it.

No, never said that. Where do you get that from? The scientific method is a way to solve problems. It is the most reliable problem solver that we have. I go with reliable sources and concepts. You seem to rely on old debunked myths.

Oh, really, now. What profession did I retire from?

Clear not that one. If you did you would realize how quickly it could be determined that your suspect was innocent. Of course with the ridiculous scenario that you gave the man would be arrested. That proves nothing except that you were trying to construct a strawman at best.

 

[Earthling]

Why make such obviously false claims? I can continually demonstrate that I am correct. When I or others request that you support your claims all you can say is something on the order of "that is what I heard".

And if you don't like it when your errors and ignorance are called out then learn. It really won't take that long for you to learn the basics of science. I and others have offered to help you many times over. By the way, I don't go by my opinion. Once again I can and will support any claims that I make. You never seem to be able to do that.

Keep on trying to convince yourself of that.

 

[Earthling]

No, never said that. Where do you get that from? The scientific method is a way to solve problems. It is the most reliable problem solver that we have. I go with reliable sources and concepts. You seem to rely on old debunked myths.



Clear not that one. If you did you would realize how quickly it could be determined that your suspect was innocent. Of course with the ridiculous scenario that you gave the man would be arrested. That proves nothing except that you were trying to construct a strawman at best.

The evidence? What about the evidence?

 

[Subduction Zone]

It may be you have found a better explanation about evolution, other than what the current science offers. Thus that would be fine.

You would just have an open mind on the subject until science can prove it undebatably so.

Regards Tony

When all of the evidence supports only one side, and the other side has been shown to be wrong for roughly 150 years then one can state that undebateably evolution is the answer.

Right now there is no debate about evolution. Only corrections. To have a debate both sides have to have evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Keep on trying to convince yourself of that.

Please, you know it is true. That is why you run away from reasonable requests.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The evidence? What about the evidence?

The evidence is incomplete. And does not fully support the charges. Seriously, you could not have worked in the forensic sciences.

I will gladly come back to your strawman once you learn what is and what is not evidence. Not my standards, but scientific standards. You don't have to trust me.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And no hurry. I have to run for a while. But if you take me up on my kind offer and learn what is and what is not evidence and the basics of the scientific method I will not be able to say that you are totally ignorant about the sciences any longer.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Good advice. Except for that the atheists insist it already has been.

Well one can insist, but science has not reached that stage of assurance.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

When all of the evidence supports only one side, and the other side has been shown to be wrong for roughly 150 years then one can state that undebateably evolution is the answer.

Right now there is no debate about evolution. Only corrections. To have a debate both sides have to have evidence.

Evolution is an undestanding and our understanding of evolutulion is still evolving as we consider the subject in greater detail.

To fully understand the subject, it may also require that we have an appropriate understanding our spiritual side.

Regards Tony

 

[Jose Fly]

Sure, though I don't understand what is so difficult about it. I can present a mountain of evidence for or against anything. If a mountain of evidence is produced to establish something and that evidence isn't very convincing then it amounts to nothing.

A police officer responds to a call that there has been a homicide committed in a dark alley behind my apartment. I seen it. I called it in. After I call it in I watch the scene where the dead man has been stabbed. A man walks down the dark alley and stumbles over something before he sees the dead body. He picks up a bloody knife, just as a cop comes around the corner. The cop arrests the man with the knife and uses the knife, with his fingerprints on it as evidence for the man having killed the dead man.

What does that evidence mean to me?

Seems like a really odd way of thinking. If the above is so, then there is no evidence for anything as long as someone somewhere doesn't find it convincing.

I could give several. One is Piltdown man.

Could you elaborate on how that's indicative of scientists as a whole being biased?

No. That would be like saying theology, or me myself has been wrong and so is always wrong. Recently I've taken a liking to saying "science is always wrong." What I mean by that is it's correctable. Science isn't the discovery of what we already know.

So science being correctable is a good thing, right? And it doesn't preclude us from reaching solid conclusions, right?

I think it must be the smocks. Something about smocks. Lab coats give me the willies.

You stated that scientists across the world have been bad at their jobs for over a century. Again, how do you know? Have you spent any time actually looking at their work? Do you read scientific journals? Attend conferences?

the scientific community. Science itself.

So scientists are pressuring themselves to conform with themselves. Uh huh.

As far as the immortality of the soul issue, it's not something I've ever looked into so I honestly don't know.

 

[Earthling]

Seems like a really odd way of thinking. If the above is so, then there is no evidence for anything as long as someone somewhere doesn't find it convincing.

Quite the opposite. There is evidence for every side of everything. If it's gathered by each side to support their side it's because it convinces them of their position. Just because you have evidence of something doesn't make it true or accurate or anything, but evidence.

Could you elaborate on how that's indicative of scientists as a whole being biased?

It's an example of how scientists being biased can mislead them into promulgating something, in this case, that was fraudulent, as evidence.

So science being correctable is a good thing, right?

Certainly. I use the same methodology in every decision I make, otherwise I would be bogged in a stagnant pool of incorrectness.

And it doesn't preclude us from reaching solid conclusions, right?

It allows us to dismiss our mistakes, or faulty ideas, etc. and improve them.

You stated that scientists across the world have been bad at their jobs for over a century. Again, how do you know? Have you spent any time actually looking at their work? Do you read scientific journals? Attend conferences?

I thought I had answered this, have I answered this? Let me put it to you this way. I think that anyone, or any group of people can make mistakes or take a liking to some idea that false.

So scientists are pressuring themselves to conform with themselves. Uh huh.

Of course. There is always peer pressure, there is always people clinging to old ideas that are false. To think science has something preventing this is unrealistic.

As far as the immortality of the soul issue, it's not something I've ever looked into so I honestly don't know.

Well, I gave you every little bit of information you needed. The verse I gave says the soul dies. Straight up. No nonsense. Yet most Christians say it's immortal. Fro the reasons I stated. Alexander.

 

[Windwalker]

Not yet. Any suggestions?

Here, I thought you had an actual planned approach to this thread. I see, it's truly a mystery.

You were going to ask other Christians who don't feel any need to deny evolution why the things you struggle to reconcile they have no issue with?

 

[Earthling]

Here, I thought you had an actual planned approach to this thread. I see, it's truly a mystery.

Yes. Plus I didn't want to announce "Evolution Thread" which, in this forum is like dangling a bloody gutted fish above shark infested water.

You were going to ask other Christians who don't feel any need to deny evolution why the things you struggle to reconcile they have no issue with?

Uhh, yes, except that I wouldn't say I struggle to reconcile those, since I don't think that you can. Now I could distort the Genesis account beyond recognition or I could do the same with Evolution, or both, for that matter, but I don't want to do that. Don't see any point in it.

 

[Jose Fly]

Quite the opposite. There is evidence for every side of everything. If it's gathered by each side to support their side it's because it convinces them of their position. Just because you have evidence of something doesn't make it true or accurate or anything, but evidence.

So how do you tell which side is true and accurate?

It's an example of how scientists being biased can mislead them into promulgating something, in this case, that was fraudulent, as evidence.

I still don't get your point. You said that scientists' interpretation of evidence is biased and offered Piltdown Man as an example. How does Piltdown Man lead to "therefore scientists are biased"?

Certainly. I use the same methodology in every decision I make, otherwise I would be bogged in a stagnant pool of incorrectness.

It allows us to dismiss our mistakes, or faulty ideas, etc. and improve them.

I'm trying to follow you here, but it's kinda difficult. You say you employ the same sort of self-correcting methodology as science, so obviously you consider it to be a good thing. Yet when I asked how you explain the fact that the scientific community has had the opposite view on evolution than you for well over a century, you said "They are wrong. Simple. Their interpretation of the evidence is biased. Has science ever been wrong for centuries before? Answer that question."

So on one hand you present science being wrong as a negative and an excuse to wave away scientists' long-standing agreement on evolution. But then you turn around and praise science for being self-correcting and say you do that yourself.

Are you basically saying that you can wave away the long-standing agreement among scientists on evolution because in reality they're wrong and eventually they'll self-correct and reject evolution?

I thought I had answered this, have I answered this? Let me put it to you this way. I think that anyone, or any group of people can make mistakes or take a liking to some idea that false.

No, you didn't answer the question. You said that scientists are bad at their jobs. I'm asking how you know. Do you read their work in scientific journals? Do you attend their conferences?

Of course. There is always peer pressure, there is always people clinging to old ideas that are false. To think science has something preventing this is unrealistic.

Same question....how do you know what does or doesn't go on in science?

 

[Earthling]

So how do you tell which side is true and accurate?

Decide for yourself or trust in someone else. My advice is a mix of both, but I think what most people do is go with the mainstream which is always wrong.

I still don't get your point. You said that scientists' interpretation of evidence is biased and offered Piltdown Man as an example. How does Piltdown Man lead to "therefore scientists are biased"?

Piltdown man was a fake. But it was used by science as an example of evolution for 40 years.

I'm trying to follow you here, but it's kinda difficult. You say you employ the same sort of self-correcting methodology as science, so obviously you consider it to be a good thing. Yet when I asked how you explain the fact that the scientific community has had the opposite view on evolution than you for well over a century, you said "They are wrong. Simple. Their interpretation of the evidence is biased. Has science ever been wrong for centuries before? Answer that question."

Sir Isaac Newton. Einstein. The Planet Pluto. Atheists seem to be of the opinion that science can't be wrong, then boast of it's self correcting nature. Define theory. Is theory fact?

So on one hand you present science being wrong as a negative and an excuse to wave away scientists' long-standing agreement on evolution. But then you turn around and praise science for being self-correcting and say you do that yourself.

Are you basically saying that you can wave away the long-standing agreement among scientists on evolution because in reality they're wrong and eventually they'll self-correct and reject evolution?

Yes.

 

[Jose Fly]

Decide for yourself or trust in someone else.

So how did you come to decide that evolution is wrong?

My advice is a mix of both, but I think what most people do is go with the mainstream which is always wrong.

So the earth is really flat and doesn't move? There's no such thing as gravity? There's no such thing as an atom?

Piltdown man was a fake. But it was used by science as an example of evolution for 40 years.

So how does that equate to "therefore all scientists are biased"?

Atheists seem to be of the opinion that science can't be wrong, then boast of it's self correcting nature.

I've never seen an atheist say "science can't be wrong". Do you have an example?

Define theory. Is theory fact?

A scientific theory is a well-supported framework for understanding a set of data. So scientific theories aren't facts, they explain facts. Specific to evolution, the theory of evolution explains how evolution occurs. That evolution occurs is a fact.

Yes.

So I assume you apply that framework to everything, correct? One day it'll be that the earth is flat, gravity isn't real, and atoms don't exist, right?

Also, you keep avoiding explaining how you came to be sufficiently familiar with the work of scientists to be able to accuse them of being bad at their jobs and pressuring one another to conform. Given the number of times you've avoided this question, I can only conclude that it's because you don't read scientific journals, don't attend conferences, or do much of anything else in that regard. So your accusations are merely the ignorant rantings of some person on the internet.

I figure if you did have a good basis for you accusations, you would have said so some time ago. Like the saying among lawyers.....the questions you avoid say more about you than the ones you answer.

 

[Earthling]

So how did you come to decide that evolution is wrong?

When I was first introduced to it I thought . . . No! Is this a joke?

So the earth is really flat and doesn't move? There's no such thing as gravity? There's no such thing as an atom?

No, Who Knows? and Who Knows?

So how does that equate to "therefore all scientists are biased"?

Everyone is biased. You can get people to believe anything but once they believe something you can't very easily change their minds.

I've never seen an atheist say "science can't be wrong". Do you have an example?

Could evolution be wrong? Could Pluto as a Planet? Could the weather forecast? Could various estimations on the size of the big bang? It seems to me that atheists promote the idea that science can be wrong as long as it has nothing to do with their disbelief in God. Even if it is wrong time and time again, they do all sorts of mental gymnastics to try and say it can but can't.

A scientific theory is a well-supported framework for understanding a set of data. So scientific theories aren't facts, they explain facts. Specific to evolution, the theory of evolution explains how evolution occurs. That evolution occurs is a fact.

Uh-huh.

So I assume you apply that framework to everything, correct? One day it'll be that the earth is flat, gravity isn't real, and atoms don't exist, right?

I have no doubt that either one day they will dramatically change or they have already.

Also, you keep avoiding explaining how you came to be sufficiently familiar with the work of scientists to be able to accuse them of being bad at their jobs and pressuring one another to conform. Given the number of times you've avoided this question, I can only conclude that it's because you don't read scientific journals, don't attend conferences, or do much of anything else in that regard. So your accusations are merely the ignorant rantings of some person on the internet.

I figure if you did have a good basis for you accusations, you would have said so some time ago. Like the saying among lawyers.....the questions you avoid say more about you than the ones you answer.

It's moot and you should know it. I could ask you the same questions. How much of the work of scientists have you thoroughly investigated to make your own conclusions? Enough to decide to agree with it? If you state your position on the Bible I could ask you the same regarding theologians etc. It's moot.

 

[Jose Fly]

When I was first introduced to it I thought . . . No! Is this a joke?

No, Who Knows? and Who Knows?



Everyone is biased. You can get people to believe anything but once they believe something you can't very easily change their minds.



Could evolution be wrong? Could Pluto as a Planet? Could the weather forecast? Could various estimations on the size of the big bang? It seems to me that atheists promote the idea that science can be wrong as long as it has nothing to do with their disbelief in God. Even if it is wrong time and time again, they do all sorts of mental gymnastics to try and say it can but can't.



Uh-huh.



I have no doubt that either one day they will dramatically change or they have already.

So you believe we don't know anything, can't know anything, and everyone is equally biased so no one can be trusted on anything. Thanks for explaining.

It's moot and you should know it.

Not to me. The fact that you freely throw around accusations against scientists even though you know basically nothing about what they do is quite relevant to me. I'm sure it's "moot" to you, but given the above, that's hardly surprising.

I could ask you the same questions. How much of the work of scientists have you thoroughly investigated to make your own conclusions? Enough to decide to agree with it?

Yep. Being a biologist myself, I stay as up to date as I can on the relevant scientific publications and I regularly attend (and participate in) scientific conferences.

If you state your position on the Bible I could ask you the same regarding theologians etc. It's moot.

Given what you stated above, everything is "moot" to you.

I thank you for your time.