What We Thought

[sayak83]

Yeah, you keep telling yourself that..

I have nothing to tell myself. Being a scientist with 10-20 colleagues who are physicists I know the state of affairs fairly well.

 

[muhammad_isa]

I have nothing to tell myself. Being a scientist with 10-20 colleagues who are physicists I know the state of affairs fairly well.

You think you do..
Give us a link to wikipedia that shows it is the majority view, if you expect me to believe you.

 

[Jose Fly]

You got it.
That's where investigative study comes in, and all people - including scientists - can do that.

Not really. Do you know of a means by which we can scientifically investigate and study gods?

The Bible makes statements which we cannot investigate directly, but can do so indirectly.

Like what?

For example, scientists say we cannot see evolution at some levels, becase time is needed - millions of years.
However, they state that evolution at all levels, is an absolute truth... even though they cannot demonstrate it.

I hope you understand that I'm not going to just take your word for "what scientists say". So if you could provide examples of the above, that would help.

This is no different to the Bible, which makes absolute statements as truth.
They cannot be demonstrated, because time is needed.
However, they can be indirectly shown to be true, by investigating their reliability.
In the same way you attempt to answer questions, namely via collection and analysis of data, from which conclusions are drawn.

Again, examples please.

I don't see any different? Do you?

Impossible to say without specific examples.

The other thing is, those absolute truth are such, not because we came up with ideas, but because they are absolute truths which we discover to be absolute truth, if that make sense.

It's entirely circular.

Think of it this way, Einstein's general relativity may change to something else, if a discovery is made that calls for an adjustment in what is currently believed.
That's because they are trying to understand something that's already an absolute truth - fixed.
It cannot change, so our understanding must change to agree with an absolute truth.

Well, the "absolute truth" you're referring to here is probably better described as "reality". IOW, science is a process by which we attempt to understand reality (not arrive at "absolute truths").

Now, the Bible makes statements as absolute truths.
We are on a search for absolute truths.
Does the Bible lead us there?... is the question.

Exactly.

Science attempts to understand reality (what you describe as "absolute truth") via data collection and analyses.

Religion OTOH arrives at "absolute truths" as you describe...via statements (revelations).

Those are very different processes.

From the evidence, I would say, it looks that way to me, so why should I not accept it, in faith?
There is more reason to do so, than having faith that all life came from a common ancestor.

The idea of UCA has not enen been verified.
People are still waiting, and some are not certain, that the same thing that happened to Darwin's tree, won't happen to the beliefs about UCA.

Well, you're certainly free to think that way.

I was wondering though... As a side point, why exactly do you believe in evolution?
I am not looking for an answer like, because of the evidence... if you know what I mean
Why do you believe it.

Primarily because I've seen it happening myself. But also because I've spent a fair bit of time studying the subject (as well as the denialists' arguments) and found it to be an extremely obvious conclusion.

As I've often said, there's a reason the world's scientists have all agreed on this for well over a century, and it's not because they all hate the gods, are under a spell from devils, or are incompetent. It's because the data supports it ridiculously well.

And there's a reason the people who refuse to acknowledge this reality are pretty much all from conservative religious groups....UCA, human/primate common ancestry, etc. conflict with their beliefs, so they deny it.

That's really all there is to this.

Well I disagreed, as I have shown, so I am interested in your response.
Analysis is very much a part of religious study, or approach to finding truth.

Only within very strict limits. I assume I don't have to explain what happens in some religions if a person's analysis concluded that some core beliefs are false.

As you admitted... and I hope you meant it, some scientists do present a different side to what you said here. Hubris?

Sure, some do but they are a tiny minority. The vast majority of scientists work in virtual anonymity.

Furthermore, scientists are not infallible... nor is science.
In fact, science can present ideologies as scientific truths. It can very much be used as a political and physical tool.

Do you disagree? Do you think that is beyond reality, in this world?

Agreed, but I'm not sure how that's significant. Scientists aren't perfect, therefore........?

 

[nPeace]

Not really. Do you know of a means by which we can scientifically investigate and study gods?

Why scientifically?
I know we can investigate most of anything, with reason, logic, etc.
Scientists use those to make inferences. We all do.
That's why no one thinks a house has no builder, regardless of what it's made of.
So we investigate God in a number of ways... Again, why scientifically? 1) Investigating creation - designed objects in nature. 2) Investigating the authenticity of the Bible. 3) Investigating results and experiences.

Like what?

Seriously?
Like, "The dead do not know anything. The dead are remembered by God. ..."

I hope you understand that I'm not going to just take your word for "what scientists say". So if you could provide examples of the above, that would help.

Seriously Fly?
Go here, and no, sorry. I don't have the time to search through information I have already posted here... and which I think you already know.

Again, examples please.

Examples...
Absolute statement - God created the heavens and the earth.
Is that true? Let's investigate.

Absolute statement - God is love.
Is that true? Let's investigate.

Absolute statement - God is.
Is that true? Let's investigate.

Impossible to say without specific examples.

You can try the above.

It's entirely circular.

How so?
Are you not discovering what already is there, and don't you have to adjust your understand to fit those findings.
That's circular to you?

Well, the "absolute truth" you're referring to here is probably better described as "reality". IOW, science is a process by which we attempt to understand reality (not arrive at "absolute truths").

I thought so.

Exactly.

Science attempts to understand reality (what you describe as "absolute truth") via data collection and analyses.

Religion OTOH arrives at "absolute truths" as you describe...via statements (revelations).

As I described? Wait a minute. I forgot you find it hard to understand simple things I say.
How could I forget.

I describe no such thing.
Absolute truths exist - regarding reality.
Religious people endeavor to find out what those realities are, and if absolute statements made surrounding these, are true. They use data. They use analysis.
Are you saying they have no data, and do not analyze that data?
Please demonstrate that claim.

Those are very different processes.

You need to demonstrate how that is.

Well, you're certainly free to think that way.

Just as you are free to think as you do... and Ian, Betty, Jack, and every thinking individual.

Primarily because I've seen it happening myself.

You have? What did you see, that none of us haven't?

But also because I've spent a fair bit of time studying the subject (as well as the denialists' arguments) and found it to be an extremely obvious conclusion.

So has those who don't believe as you do.
Thanks for giving the reason you believe.
How is that different to the ones you call deniers, who consider you a denier?

As I've often said, there's a reason the world's scientists have all agreed on this for well over a century, and it's not because they all hate the gods, are under a spell from devils, or are incompetent. It's because the data supports it ridiculously well.

I recall that was said before, regarding now obsolete beliefs.
Here's one.
...the consensus took one hundred and twenty five years to arrive at the right conclusion despite the efforts of the prominent “skeptics” around the world, skeptics who were demeaned and ignored.

However, there is no proof you can provide to show the reason the world's scientists have all agreed on this for well over a century.
You can only make the claim, but you don't know.

And there's a reason the people who refuse to acknowledge this reality are pretty much all from conservative religious groups....UCA, human/primate common ancestry, etc. conflict with their beliefs, so they deny it.

That's really all there is to this.

You certainly are free to believe that, but it's far from the truth.
Everyone who is not a minor, and familiar to some extent, with the subject, knows that people who do not have a religion, cannot chose not to believe something, because of religious beliefs.
Only deniers say things like that. It's like they make up anything to try to discredit anyone who disagrees with them.

Only within very strict limits. I assume I don't have to explain what happens in some religions if a person's analysis concluded that some core beliefs are false.

I can't read minds, so unless you explain, I am clueless as to what ideas you have in mind.
Furthermore, what does those religions have to do with me

Sure, some do but they are a tiny minority. The vast majority of scientists work in virtual anonymity.

Agreed, but I'm not sure how that's significant. Scientists aren't perfect, therefore........?

Nobody is perfect.
That was not my point.
I fail to believe you missed the point.

 

[rational experiences]

G O D a humans assessment aware of above. O rotating G spiral movement spirit cooling. O DD I split heated O rotating...overcome by GOO to D.

GD outcome spiralling flow in cooling causes.

God says a theist created heavens above as its cooled causes and the earth as it cooled too. Theism.

A Theists statement about and by cooling GOD one status only.

 

[sayak83]

You think you do..
Give us a link to wikipedia that shows it is the majority view, if you expect me to believe you.

As can seen in the article below.
The idea of universe from absolute nothing is considered the least possible of all the possibilities by cosmologists
What existed before the Big Bang?.

The current most well supported pre Big Bang model is inflationary theory that makes it completely unnecessary to have any beginnings of any kind.
What came before the Big Bang? UB physicist’s new popular science book explains one leading theory.

Infinitely extending universes is the prediction that comes from every cosmological theory that exists today (loop quantum gravity, string theory, Penrose model etc etc). Here is one example of how loop quantum theory shows a cyclic universe system that extends eternally in time
What happened before the Big Bang? | Nature Physics

Here is how inflationary theory also shows an eternal universe
Eternal inflation - Wikipedia

String theory also shows the same thing

String Theory Predicts a Time before the Big Bang

A universe from absolute nothing is not considered as a serious possibility by any cosmologist today.
Ask Ethan: How Did The Entire Universe Come From Nothing?

 

[muhammad_isa]

I shall ignore the other links, as I don't like checking them all out .. in the same way as I won't accept "you-tube"

Here is how inflationary theory also shows an eternal universe
Eternal inflation - Wikipedia

I don't see any confirmation that "the model" is necessarily eternal into the past.

I also think we need to look at the subject from a less narrow-minded point of view.
Inflation (cosmology) - Wikipedia

It seems to me, that many people pick a scholar [ such as Hawking ], and then
make a particular theory as "sacred"
That is not the case, unless it has been proved beyond all doubt.

 

[sayak83]

I shall ignore the other links, as I don't like checking them all out .. in the same way as I won't accept "you-tube"



I don't see any confirmation that "the model" is necessarily eternal into the past.

I also think we need to look at the subject from a less narrow-minded point of view.
Inflation (cosmology) - Wikipedia

It seems to me, that many people pick a scholar [ such as Hawking ], and then
make a particular theory as "sacred"
That is not the case, unless it has been proved beyond all doubt.

I do not see how the wiki entry supports your view.

 

[muhammad_isa]

I do not see how the wiki entry supports your view.

You are the one that made the claim..

"Regardless of what you think, the vast majority of physicists and cosmologists believe that the physical realm pre-existed."

Where does it suggest that in those 2 wiki pages?

 

[sayak83]

You are the one that made the claim..

"Regardless of what you think, the vast majority of physicists and cosmologists believe that the physical realm pre-existed."

Where does it suggest that in those 2 wiki pages?

In every sentence as I see it. The entirety of the inflationary theory is about how the universe began not from a nothing but a pre-existing false vacuum filled with inflaton field. And that is most widely accepted theory about the beginning. So it makes my case for me.

 

[Jose Fly]

Why scientifically?
I know we can investigate most of anything, with reason, logic, etc.
Scientists use those to make inferences. We all do.
That's why no one thinks a house has no builder, regardless of what it's made of.
So we investigate God in a number of ways... Again, why scientifically? 1) Investigating creation - designed objects in nature. 2) Investigating the authenticity of the Bible. 3) Investigating results and experiences.

I thought that was the context of this discussion. But if we both agree that gods cannot be scientifically investigated, that's good.

Seriously?
Like, "The dead do not know anything. The dead are remembered by God. ..."

So how do you indirectly investigate that "the dead are remembered by God"?

Go here, and no, sorry. I don't have the time to search through information I have already posted here... and which I think you already know.

I've been to that site many times and I did a search there today, and I didn't see any statement resembling "evolution at all levels, is an absolute truth" as you claimed. Can you show specifically where it does?

Examples...
Absolute statement - God created the heavens and the earth.
Is that true? Let's investigate.

Absolute statement - God is love.
Is that true? Let's investigate.

Absolute statement - God is.
Is that true? Let's investigate.

How do you investigate those things?

How so?
Are you not discovering what already is there, and don't you have to adjust your understand to fit those findings.
That's circular to you?

You basically said absolute truths are absolute truths because they are absolute truths. ("absolute truth are such, not because we came up with ideas, but because they are absolute truths which we discover to be absolute truth").

You don't see that as circular?

As I described? Wait a minute. I forgot you find it hard to understand simple things I say.
How could I forget.

I describe no such thing.
Absolute truths exist - regarding reality.

Um....that's pretty much what I just said.

Religious people endeavor to find out what those realities are, and if absolute statements made surrounding these, are true. They use data. They use analysis.
Are you saying they have no data, and do not analyze that data?
Please demonstrate that claim.

Again, you're going to have to be specific. What realities/absolute truths do religious people use data and analyses to investigate?

You need to demonstrate how that is.

Really? Are you disputing that revelation from gods is an aspect of religion? Do you really need me to demonstrate that?

You have? What did you see, that none of us haven't?

As an undergrad, I conducted lab experiments that involved the evolution of resistant strains of bacteria. In grad school I was part of a team that studied a recently evolved species of plant. And for about 15 years of my career as a biologist I was part of a team that monitored fish populations' evolutionary responses to new habitats and conditions.

So has those who don't believe as you do.
Thanks for giving the reason you believe.
How is that different to the ones you call deniers, who consider you a denier?

I've not found that to be the case at all. You and I have had a few discussions of some of the basics of evolutionary biology, and the nature of the questions you asked and the things you apparently didn't know clearly indicated that you have not studied evolutionary biology in any serious way.

I mean, certainly you're not saying your understanding of evolutionary biology is on par with professional biologists, are you?

I recall that was said before, regarding now obsolete beliefs.
Here's one.
...the consensus took one hundred and twenty five years to arrive at the right conclusion despite the efforts of the prominent “skeptics” around the world, skeptics who were demeaned and ignored.

So your argument is "some medical researchers were wrong in the past, therefore evolutionary biologists might be wrong"?

Do you apply that reasoning to everything? Do you think anything has been been established as true?

However, there is no proof you can provide to show the reason the world's scientists have all agreed on this for well over a century.
You can only make the claim, but you don't know.

Sure I can. But then I have to wonder, why do you care? Just above you waved away the importance of consensus, but here you're trying to argue against there being a consensus.

If you don't think consensus is important, why do you care whether there's consensus about evolution?

You certainly are free to believe that, but it's far from the truth.
Everyone who is not a minor, and familiar to some extent, with the subject, knows that people who do not have a religion, cannot chose not to believe something, because of religious beliefs.
Only deniers say things like that. It's like they make up anything to try to discredit anyone who disagrees with them.

Then provide examples of evolution deniers who are not religious.

I can't read minds, so unless you explain, I am clueless as to what ideas you have in mind.
Furthermore, what does those religions have to do with me

Your religion provides an excellent example. You remember Dejee? She explained to me that if a Jehovah's Witness agreed with scientists on universal common ancestry, human/primate common ancestry, and no global flood, they would be confronted by folks in the church and if the person didn't recant those things, they would be excommunicated and shunned by other Jehovah's Witnesses.

IOW, if a Jehovah's Witness were to become an "evolutionist", they would be subjected to emotional and social punishment, potentially pretty severe (Dejee said they would be treated like a "rotten piece of fruit" who was "spreading poison").

Nobody is perfect.
That was not my point.
I fail to believe you missed the point.

So what is your point? Scientists aren't perfect, therefore........?

 

[muhammad_isa]

In every sentence as I see it.

Well, you see different to me then ..

The entirety of the inflationary theory is about how the universe began not from a nothing but a pre-existing false vacuum filled with inflaton field. And that is most widely accepted theory about the beginning. So it makes my case for me.

Beginning?
Are you referring to t=0, as opposed to t=billions of years?
What does that even mean?

The beginning of "measured time"? Not very imaginative..
If something is eternal, it has no beginning !

 

[sayak83]

Well, you see different to me then ..



Beginning?
Are you referring to t=0, as opposed to t=billions of years?
What does that even mean?

The beginning of "measured time"? Not very imaginative..
If something is eternal, it has no beginning !

Here "beginning" means a transition from one form of physical reality (false vacuum) to another (current space time). There is no absolute beginnings in these theories.

 

[muhammad_isa]

..There is no absolute beginnings in these theories.

Exactly .. inflation doesn't deal with a beginning, but you imply that it does.
It doesn't tell us one way or the other about how the "false vacuum" came about.

What you really mean is that it has become "fashionable" to assume that the universe is eternal.
Fashion waxes and wanes. It is not an established fact.

 

[sayak83]

Exactly .. inflation doesn't deal with a beginning, but you imply that it does.
It doesn't tell us one way or the other about how the "false vacuum" came about.

No it does not that is the point. A physical reality without an absolute beginning will never need a theory of the beginning at all. So there isn't one.

 

[muhammad_isa]

No it does not that is the point. A physical reality without an absolute beginning will never need a theory of the beginning at all. So there isn't one.

What twaddle. Why don't you just say that "you don't know"?

 

[sayak83]

What twaddle.

Explain

 

[nPeace]

I thought that was the context of this discussion. But if we both agree that gods cannot be scientifically investigated, that's good.

So how do you indirectly investigate that "the dead are remembered by God"?

By investigating whether the Bible can reliably be considered the word of God, or not.

I've been to that site many times and I did a search there today, and I didn't see any statement resembling "evolution at all levels, is an absolute truth" as you claimed. Can you show specifically where it does?

Macroevolution encompasses the grandest trends and transformations in evolution, such as the origin of mammals and the radiation of flowering plants. Macroevolutionary patterns are generally what we see when we look at the large-scale history of life.

Doesn't that say it?

How do you investigate those things?

1) Investigating creation - designed objects in nature. 2) Investigating the authenticity of the Bible. 3) Investigating results and experiences.

You basically said absolute truths are absolute truths because they are absolute truths. ("absolute truth are such, not because we came up with ideas, but because they are absolute truths which we discover to be absolute truth").

You don't see that as circular?

I basically said,. A is A, and cannot be not A. A is A because A is A.
Absolute truth are such, not because we came up with ideas, but because they are absolute truths which we discover to be absolute truth, if that make sense... is what I said.

How is it circular?
When does something become an absolute truth? After it is discovered to be an absolute truth?
Isn't it an absolute truth which is discovered to be an absolute truth.
Can you explain how you arrive at that being circular?

Um....that's pretty much what I just said.

So, why did you claim I said differently?

Again, you're going to have to be specific. What realities/absolute truths do religious people use data and analyses to investigate?

I think you get to go first, since I believe I asked you to.
Are you saying they have no data, and do not analyze that data?
Please demonstrate that claim.

Really? Are you disputing that revelation from gods is an aspect of religion? Do you really need me to demonstrate that?

Yes. In the context you are arguing. Since what you say, is either relevant to what I said, or it's irrelevant.

As an undergrad, I conducted lab experiments that involved the evolution of resistant strains of bacteria. In grad school I was part of a team that studied a recently evolved species of plant. And for about 15 years of my career as a biologist I was part of a team that monitored fish populations' evolutionary responses to new habitats and conditions.

How is any of this different to what we see?
Let me be more specific, so you know I am not talking about changes on a small scale. Why do you believe in whale evolution, for example?

I've not found that to be the case at all. You and I have had a few discussions of some of the basics of evolutionary biology, and the nature of the questions you asked and the things you apparently didn't know clearly indicated that you have not studied evolutionary biology in any serious way.

I mean, certainly you're not saying your understanding of evolutionary biology is on par with professional biologists, are you?

What kind of a question is that? Seems irrelevant to me.
It looks like you refused to answer a question, to bring up something you want to inject.

So your argument is "some medical researchers were wrong in the past, therefore evolutionary biologists might be wrong"?

Do you apply that reasoning to everything? Do you think anything has been been established as true?

You must be thinking of a conversation you had with someone else.
Our conversation went like this.
You said...
As I've often said, there's a reason the world's scientists have all agreed on this for well over a century, and it's not because they all hate the gods, are under a spell from devils, or are incompetent. It's because the data supports it ridiculously well.

In response, I said...
I recall that was said before, regarding now obsolete beliefs.

In other words, my statement renders your argument void, since believing that the data supports the theory well is the reason it is believed for so long, would mean that wrong data (beliefs) can support a theory for well over a century.

Sure I can. But then I have to wonder, why do you care? Just above you waved away the importance of consensus, but here you're trying to argue against there being a consensus.

I did?
Well maybe that's because history shows there is valid reason to not appeal to authority as a basis, or argument for being right, or worthy of acceptance.
How do you suppose that's unreasonable?

If you don't think consensus is important, why do you care whether there's consensus about evolution?

I don't care whether there's consensus about evolution.
What in the world makes you think that?

Science is not about consensus. Arguing that something is true because there is a consensus is a fallacy.
I thought you agreed with that. Was I mistaken? Maybe it was someone else, and not you?

Then provide examples of evolution deniers who are not religious.

What does that have to do with it? Are you saying that only religious people are dishonest?

Nevertheless, so that we can see how far atheist are willing to go to deny the truth, and try to evade it...
Lee Strobel expected the father of evolutionary theory to pass with flying colors. Instead, Darwinism failed miserably.
And so began a new spiritual journey for Strobel, who until 1981 considered God to be a four-letter word. An avowed atheist at the time, Strobel thought Christianity was a buzzword for someone who checked their intelligence at the door.

Let's see you be an expert on how this former atheist was not really atheist at heart, and was afraid of something. Like Anthony Flew, who "lost his marbles".

Your religion provides an excellent example. You remember Dejee? She explained to me that if a Jehovah's Witness agreed with scientists on universal common ancestry, human/primate common ancestry, and no global flood, they would be confronted by folks in the church and if the person didn't recant those things, they would be excommunicated and shunned by other Jehovah's Witnesses.

IOW, if a Jehovah's Witness were to become an "evolutionist", they would be subjected to emotional and social punishment, potentially pretty severe (Dejee said they would be treated like a "rotten piece of fruit" who was "spreading poison").

It would be no surprise to know that Deeje's words were twisted to reflect your propaganda, after looking at her words, and comparing them with yours.
Rejecting the Bible for one's own beliefs, is your way of saying you do not want to be a JW.
No one is "subjected to emotional and social punishment". That sound like your thinking. Not Deeje's.

So what is your point? Scientists aren't perfect, therefore........?

I made my point. Feel free to twist it whichever way you want.

 

[Jose Fly]

By investigating whether the Bible can reliably be considered the word of God, or not.

And by what method(s) do you do that?

]Macroevolution encompasses the grandest trends and transformations in evolution, such as the origin of mammals and the radiation of flowering plants. Macroevolutionary patterns are generally what we see when we look at the large-scale history of life.

Doesn't that say it?

Um...no. The words "absolute" and "truth" aren't in there.

1) Investigating creation - designed objects in nature. 2) Investigating the authenticity of the Bible. 3) Investigating results and experiences.

By what method(s)? For example, how do you tell the difference between "designed" things and non-designed things?

I basically said,. A is A, and cannot be not A. A is A because A is A.
Absolute truth are such, not because we came up with ideas, but because they are absolute truths which we discover to be absolute truth, if that make sense... is what I said.

How is it circular?
When does something become an absolute truth? After it is discovered to be an absolute truth?
Isn't it an absolute truth which is discovered to be an absolute truth.
Can you explain how you arrive at that being circular?

Maybe you can help clear this up by explaining what you specifically mean by "absolute truth" and give an example.

I think you get to go first, since I believe I asked you to.
Are you saying they have no data, and do not analyze that data?
Please demonstrate that claim.

No, I didn't say that. I asked you what absolute truths does religion investigate and how does it do so.

Yes. In the context you are arguing. Since what you say, is either relevant to what I said, or it's irrelevant.

Well, this is rather shocking. You're actually debating me on whether revelations from gods are an aspect of religion. Okay then....are you aware of a book in the Bible titled "Revelation"? Do you believe prophecies in the Bible are revelations from God?

How is any of this different to what we see?
Let me be more specific, so you know I am not talking about changes on a small scale. Why do you believe in whale evolution, for example?

Because the data I've looked at supports it.

In other words, my statement renders your argument void, since believing that the data supports the theory well is the reason it is believed for so long, would mean that wrong data (beliefs) can support a theory for well over a century.

Again, what exactly is your point?

I did?
Well maybe that's because history shows there is valid reason to not appeal to authority as a basis, or argument for being right, or worthy of acceptance.
How do you suppose that's unreasonable?

Do you believe the earth orbits the sun? If so, how did you reach that conclusion?

Science is not about consensus. Arguing that something is true because there is a consensus is a fallacy.
I thought you agreed with that. Was I mistaken? Maybe it was someone else, and not you?

Actually, consensus is important in science. Reaching consensus allows us to move forward without having to reestablish everything over and over and over again.

For example, in my work we form teams of scientists that meet, review data and analyses, discuss it, and if all goes well we reach consensus on what it means and use that to move on to the next steps. If we didn't do that, every time we met we'd have to start all over at the basics and we'd never accomplish anything.

What does that have to do with it? Are you saying that only religious people are dishonest?

I have no idea how you got that from what I wrote.

Nevertheless, so that we can see how far atheist are willing to go to deny the truth, and try to evade it...
Lee Strobel expected the father of evolutionary theory to pass with flying colors. Instead, Darwinism failed miserably.
And so began a new spiritual journey for Strobel, who until 1981 considered God to be a four-letter word. An avowed atheist at the time, Strobel thought Christianity was a buzzword for someone who checked their intelligence at the door.

Let's see you be an expert on how this former atheist was not really atheist at heart, and was afraid of something. Like Anthony Flew, who "lost his marbles".

LOL....Lee Strobel, well-known Christian apologist (and a rather dishonest one at that) is your example of a non-religious evolution denier? And I wasn't aware that Flew was an evolution denier.

It would be no surprise to know that Deeje's words were twisted to reflect your propaganda, after looking at her words, and comparing them with yours.

Well let's take a look, shall we?

In my previous post, I stated that Deeje said:

"if a Jehovah's Witness agreed with scientists on universal common ancestry, human/primate common ancestry, and no global flood, they would be confronted by folks in the church and if the person didn't recant those things, they would be excommunicated and shunned by other Jehovah's Witnesses.​

IOW, if a Jehovah's Witness were to become an "evolutionist", they would be subjected to emotional and social punishment, potentially pretty severe (Dejee said they would be treated like a "rotten piece of fruit" who was "spreading poison")."​

Now, let's compare that to what Deeje said (about a JW who becomes an "evolutionist"):

"It is clear that once you learn "the truth"....you can't "unlearn" it. And since we can see that no one else teaches it, who would we turn to?...and why would we receive 'defectors' back into our ranks only to have them spread their poison. Let them commiserate with each other....that is all they can do apparently. They have nowhere to go. Like a ripe piece of fruit, they can't go back to being 'green'....they just go rotten.

If I became a defector, and a slanderer I would expect and deserve the same treatment. "​

I await your apology.

Rejecting the Bible for one's own beliefs, is your way of saying you do not want to be a JW.
No one is "subjected to emotional and social punishment". That sound like your thinking. Not Deeje's.

Uh.....

How to Treat a Disfellowshipped Person | God’s Love (jw.org)

"We do not have spiritual or social fellowship with disfellowshipped ones. The Watchtower of September 15, 1981, page 25, stated: “A simple ‘Hello’ to someone can be the first step that develops into a conversation and maybe even a friendship. Would we want to take that first step with a disfellowshiped person?”

Is strict avoidance really necessary? Yes, for several reasons. "​

So who's not telling the truth, you or jw.org?

I made my point. Feel free to twist it whichever way you want.

It's amazing how the person engaging in the above sort of behavior has the gall to accuse others of twisting things.

 

[nPeace]

And by what method(s) do you do that?

Can you elaborate on what you mean by "by what method(s)"?

Um...no. The words "absolute" and "truth" aren't in there.

So?
What does "Macroevolutionary patterns are generally what we see" mean?
If it means, "Well we don't really see them, and we cannot be sure we see them."
Fine. I'll accept that they don't think Macroevolution occurred.

By what method(s)? For example, how do you tell the difference between "designed" things and non-designed things?

Good question. Can you?

Maybe you can help clear this up by explaining what you specifically mean by "absolute truth" and give an example.

Uh... That somthing is true.... a fact.... Uh

Like the earth is spherical, and revolves around the sun... and affected by gravity.

No, I didn't say that. I asked you what absolute truths does religion investigate and how does it do so.

Let me get back to you. I need to verify this, and right now, I don't have the time.
Later.