The Mystery Thread

[Earthling]

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.

I think this is closer to the truth than anything else I've heard.

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.

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.

Ah, it's personal. How do you manage it? How many hours a day do you spend on these forums and how much time do you spend as a biologist?

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

I thank you for your time.

That a boy! You don't have time for theologians do you? Just keep on saying God is ________.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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

Regards Tony

In regards to whether or not life is the product of evolution, it has. All that is being debated now are the details on how it happened.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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

There probably is no need to understand our spiritual side. That would affect a very very small part of the process at best. And as I said, all that is being worked out right now are details of the process.

 

[Willamena]

In regards to whether or not life is the product of evolution, it has. All that is being debated now are the details on how it happened.

I'm not sure that the progression from the chemical to "life" can be called evolution, hence the name "abiogenesis."

 

[Jollybear]

So, you dismiss all the scientists, in all the fields of expertise they are both trained and passed qualifications for, as just dishonest and dogmatic. This is pure, dishonesty on your part. It lacks all integrity. And as a Christian, that is considered a sin against God. Since when does faith = dishonesty to yourself?

.....this gets so old. Look....i dont give a crap if you think im dishonest. I know i am honest. Furthermore it appears to me that alot of naturalists (not all though) like to draw that gun and shoot that accusation of dishonesty real fast without discussion of that evidence.

Furthermore anybody (i mean absolutely anybody) who accuses me of dishonesty because i disagree with there views, ASPEASALY before we even start discussing said evidence, THERE the real dishonest ones in my book!

Furthermore, i did not say all scientists are dishonest and dogmatic. I said its 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.

So, it depends on the scientist which one in that list he is.

Plus, add to that this: not all scientists believe in macro evolution either. So....who cares what they believe or the othets believe, the evidence, data, discussion is all that matters.

You need an education about what science is and how it works.

Ok, why dont you educate me since ive been there, done that, mountains of reading endless information BS. You educate me then.

No one is suggesting it's "perfect", but it is a far, far, far ways away from just being the nonsense you just made up. Why does evolution scare you so as a Christian, to make you deceive yourself so? What about those Christians who do believe in God, and yet have no problem with evolution like you do? What is the difference between them and you, besides their self-honesty?

Evolution does not scare me. I simply and HONESTLY dont believe it. To be clear, macro-evolution. Micro, i do.

And the difference between me and those other christians is we differ on that point. Furthermore i think they too easily gave in. If i dont agree with something, you better bet your life on it that ill question every darn angle possible on it before i agree with it, IF i agree.

I'm saying to dismiss all scientists in all fields as all just playing some game of biases and trying to please each other, so utterly lacks in integrity that for you to just seize up that self-deception in order to preserve your ideas about God, and that is precisely what it is, is in fact nothing short of dishonesty. It lacks integrity.

People who do this need to hear it as it really is. It's a lie, hiding yourself from an "inconvenient truth". That is not how one honors faith. That's how one destroys it. That's why you have many becoming atheists, when you ask them to lobotomize themselves in order to "believe" in God.

^^^^ utter bull crap.

Most often, people who lack technical knowledge, assume it is all "magic" to begin with. I am a Sr. Engineer who has close to 20 years working with computer technologies, and I tell you a true story from early on to illustrate this point. Listen and see if you hear similarities?

The company I worked for had sent a computer to run rasterization software for a large format printer. This customer would call in with all sorts of flakey, random behaviors with the computer system. After numerous calls to the support desk working with the techs, they decided to send a technician onsite to troubleshoot the issues.

Upon opening the case on the computer, they found taped on to the motherboard, several little metal crosses. The tech asked the customer what these were, and she told him that it was acting badly so she put these on there to help ward off the bad spirits that were causing the issues. Needless to say, the source of the problem was instantly determined!

The tech attempted to explain how that metal laid over the various circuits actually conducts electricity, and that that was what was causing the issues. She doubtless, did not believe him, because what is all the "electricity" stuff he was talking about? Have you ever seen an electron? That's just what "scientists" say to impress each other in their "science" meetings, but they don't really know either about such things. It was just "luck" that taking the crosses off the motherboard fixed the problem.

Sound familiar?

Your story dont apply to me, it is funny though.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm not sure that the progression from the chemical to "life" can be called evolution, hence the name "abiogenesis."

Right. That is a related but different topic. And a bit knottier than evolution itself. Very little evidence exists to tell us how it happened. And until we understood how life itself works it was all but impossible to understand how abiogenesis occurred. But right now that science is advancing every year. It is still in the hypothetical stage, but we may see a well developed theory in our lifetimes.

And of course "We don't know yet" is never evidence for creationism.

 

[Jollybear]

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

I take it as a case by case basis. To be general.

 

[Jollybear]

Obviously. No person, in the grip of false views know that they are delusional.
Follow my post series here,
What is Evolution?

Ok, i clicked on the link and read your OP. What i got was a break down of what evolution is. Ok, thats all fine and dandy, but, wheres the proof for macro evolution?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Not at RF, unless you wish to experience true religious persecution!

Like having people disagree with you?
Man, true religious persecution used to be a little more inconvenient.

 

[sealchan]

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

I believe in questioning everything i dont agree with. I will not agree with something if i dont understand the why behind the consensus.

Basically, i dont give a hoot about consensus, only understanding the data/evidence/logic.

Also to add further, most people, if not all, have biases, also, alot of people can be stupid. So when you mix bias, with stupid, plus the need to understand the evidence/data/logic, then consensus is utterly worthless.

If you consider the fact that we all have a limited amount of time during which we have to re- and out- know countless others, it should be rare that an individual can successfully over turn a consensus collectively.

An individual might build up their own sense of superiority in a self serving way by knowing better without having the knowledge and experience to make a case to that community.

 

[sealchan]

Like having people disagree with you?
Man, true religious persecution used to be a little more inconvenient.

Yes nowadays all you need to do to be persecuted is to have someone complain to you that your dog is on their lawn.

 

[Jollybear]

If you consider the fact that we all have a limited amount of time during which we have to re- and out- know countless others, it should be rare that an individual can successfully over turn a consensus collectively.

An individual might build up their own sense of superiority in a self serving way by knowing better without having the knowledge and experience to make a case to that community.

I dont know why people stay stuck on consensus. Its beyond me.

 

[Windwalker]

Uhh, yes, except that I wouldn't say I struggle to reconcile those, since I don't think that you can.

Of course you struggle with it. Why else spend so many years fighting against if it was no issue for you? I think you're trying to convince yourself of something here.

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.

You know, from my perspective, how you are reading Genesis can be seen as a distortion? So you are already doing that, don't kid yourself otherwise. In fact, I'd consider that reading of it to be rather, well, lacking.

But since you are unwilling to consider anything other than your own points of view as legitimate, I see no further reason to discuss. You've found all the answers you need, and wish other to believe you are happy with that. I'm not sure why you debate with everyone here though about you being right though, if you're truly convinced. I know what it's like to hide from the truth you really know, but are too fearful to face.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Take it easy. Take it slow. No fuss.

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

Sure. You can accept or reject whatever you care to for whatever reasons are your own. The problem comes when a person decides to accept or reject something then everyone should do so without any more valid reason than their say so. I accept the theory of evolution based on its logic and validity as a theory and for the explanations it provides for the evidence. If a better theory comes along, I probably wouldn't jump right on but I would do my best to understand the new theory and determine if it is better at explaining the evidence or not.

Most of the reasons that I see given for rejecting evolution are emotional and without regard to an understanding of the theory, the evidence or science.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

To yourself, yes. But not to anyone else.


Unless you're a scientist or person of other importance on the subject, it's like I said....your opinions on evolution are only important to you.

I think a layperson can become self-educated on the science of evolution and form valid opinions based on that understanding. Some do, but most do not and often those with opinions contrary to the science show a belief in their own knowledge that exceeds their competence in the subject. If they honestly learn about the science, I can't imagine that they would object or post irrationally.

 

[Earthling]

Sure. You can accept or reject whatever you care to for whatever reasons are your own. The problem comes when a person decides to accept or reject something then everyone should do so without any more valid reason than their say so. I accept the theory of evolution based on its logic and validity as a theory and for the explanations it provides for the evidence. If a better theory comes along, I probably wouldn't jump right on but I would do my best to understand the new theory and determine if it is better at explaining the evidence or not.

Most of the reasons that I see given for rejecting evolution are emotional and without regard to an understanding of the theory, the evidence or science.

Maybe, but you don't see nobody touting the evidence, do you. I sure don't.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Maybe, but you don't see nobody touting the evidence, do you. I sure don't.

I haven't been here that much, so I cannot provide a valid response, however, the evidence I have seen from the side of those rejecting the theory on religious grounds has been laughable. Either intentionally made up or completely misunderstood. So, in that sense, I agree with you.

However, the evidence is no secret and has been readily available for over 150 years. It was even known before Darwin. So claiming it isn't available as a reason to reject the theory is dishonest.

 

[Earthling]

I haven't been here that much, so I cannot provide a valid response, however, the evidence I have seen from the side of those rejecting the theory on religious grounds has been laughable. Either intentionally made up or completely misunderstood. So, in that sense, I agree with you.

However, the evidence is no secret and has been readily available for over 150 years. It was even known before Darwin. So claiming it isn't available as a reason to reject the theory is dishonest.

I'm not saying anything about availability though, I'm talking about people who say they know it and most likely don't even begin to understand it. I certainly never felt the need to familiarize myself with it. It's a question of whether to believe in the creator of the universe or some imperfect people who have a long history of changing their minds about what is true.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I'm not saying anything about availability though, I'm talking about people who say they know it and most likely don't even begin to understand it. I certainly never felt the need to familiarize myself with it. It's a question of whether to believe in the creator of the universe or some imperfect people who have a long history of changing their minds about what is true.

You don't feel the need to learn about something you are against? I don't understand how that works. On what basis are you able to evaluate any evidence that is offered? How can you make any valid statements if you haven't familiarized yourself with it?

 

[sayak83]

Ok, i clicked on the link and read your OP. What i got was a break down of what evolution is. Ok, thats all fine and dandy, but, wheres the proof for macro evolution?

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