Sunning Tomatoes - Belief or Science?

by jgnat 8 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  jgnat

  I've seen a lot of fierce belief and science bantered around on the evolution thread this week. As I was slicing up my final ripened tomato from my garden, I got to thinking. I learned from mom's example to put the green tomatoes on the window ledge to ripen. I read later that ripe fruit give off ethylene gas. So one ripe tomato can in a paper sack of green ones will help ripen the whole bunch. It's true, it works like magic. I'm confident the scientists have it right.

  Now, why did I readily jump ship from tradition to this latest scientific discovery? Why do I accept the "expert" opinion with barely a whisper of dissent? Would I have greater trouble if the bible account described how Mary and Martha had sunned their tomatoes instead of putting them in a sack?

  Scientific theory must undergo more rigorous testing than belief. Theory, applied, must work. If it does not, either the test or the theory is faulty. Belief in the absence of science, however, can fly all over the map. How can you KNOW it is true unless you test it against reality?

  http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20060930175024AAnkkDz
• 

  Cellist

  I agree wholeheartedly, jgnat. I put more stock in proveable science than unproveable surmisings. Evolution is a fact .... to a point. Just look at the different dog breeds. They all evolved from a common ancestor. But when science tries to move beyond the origin of breeds to the origin of life, they start sounding just like the religionists. And as far as I can see, there's no experiment they can conduct to "prove" their contentions. I would love to be shown the solid evidence, so far all I've gotten is dogmatic statements contending there "is proof" without any effort of producing said proof. Or, if they do produce it, it's proving something different than the point in question.
  
  Cellist
• 

  jgnat

  Evolution is a tough one, because historical evidence, by nature, will be spotty. I think much more empirical, and undebatable, is the light from the stars and what it tells us about the age of our universe. One has to go through some rather severe spine-bending to explain away starlight that took millions of years to get here.
• 

  OUTLAW

  Fermones set off by a ripening fruit or vegetables are a chefs nightmare..We always quickly seperate them,so we don`t lose much produce to rot,before we can use it...OUTLAW
• 

  AuldSoul

  Cellist: Just look at the different dog breeds. They all evolved from a common ancestor.

  True. However, by way of demonstrating that evolution need not have occurred without external influence exerted to achieve specific, predicted results we need only look at ... different dog breeds. Intelligence can provably be used to artifically introduce constraints conducive to certain evolutionary results.

  Respectfully,
  AuldSoul
• 

  stevenyc

  auldsoul: Intelligence can provably be used to artifically introduce constraints conducive to certain evolutionary results.

  All true, but so can bad luck.

  Are you suggesting that there are testable traits in the evolutionary process that identify a helping hand?

  steve
• 

  AuldSoul

  stevenyc,

  Are you suggesting that there are testable traits in the evolutionary process that identify a helping hand?

  I am. And as soon as AlanF responds to the thread I started perhaps I can get that underway. For a fair and rational debate, it is usually necessary to set out the ground rules and establish a set of assumptions to serve as premise for both parties. The "evolution or creation" thread was overrun by aggressive off topic posts, so I started a new one just for AlanF and I.

  Respectfully,
  AuldSoul
• 

  stevenyc

  Auldsoul, that's news to me. I'm looking forward to your discussion.

  steve
• 

  Cellist

  AuldSoul,
  What I was trying to say is that living things change (evolve) over time. Usually because of ID (i.e. breeders) or geographic isolation. That has absolutely nothing to do with where life came from. I have yet to see where science has bridged the missing links. Life forms "appear suddenly in the fossil record, fully formed". This doesn't "prove" that there is a creator, but it also doesn't prove that there isn't one. Both sides of this argument eventually come down to faith. Either faith in speculative science or faith in an unseen God. Debating with an evolutionist is exactly like debating a religionist.
  
  I would love to have someone offer me conclusive evidence one way or the other. Right now I'm sitting in mental limbo. But my days of putting blind faith in something or someone are over. Never again if I can at all help it.
  
  Cellist