If evolution is true ?

by D wiltshire 88 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  larc

  D Willtshire,

  In your post directed to me, you asserted that scientists ignore facts that don't fit their theory. Please provide one example with a reference for that casual and unlikely premise. Scientists do not work and think that way. They are careful in describing what their theory can and can not explain. One purpose of theory building is to explain as many facts as possible. One purpose of generating new theories is to be able to encompass more facts than previous theories. Examples of this is the theory of the conservation of energy. Followed by the theory of the conservation of matter, followed by Einstein's equation showing the relationship between energy and matter.

  So, again, please show just one example where scientists willfully ignore facts that don't fit their theory.
• 

  Julie

  Greetings to All--

  Wow! What a thread! I learn so much from these kinds of threads, always grateful to those who contribute substantially to them.

  D. Wiltshire,

  The only thing that you have written that even remotely resembles a reply to Abaddon's post, which puts forth a great deal of information backing up his views, is this:

  :While I do read what scientist say, I think some times they get carried away in there assumptions.
  While I apreciate facts I gloss over what I concider far out assumptions.
  I hope you enjoyed our little sparring.

  Is this then to be considered your rebuttal?

  Abaddon,

  When I make it over to your world, I will be looking you up.

  Regards,
  Julie
• 

  rem

  D,

  I suppose to an ignorant person hundreds of years ago a person asserting that the earth was a sphere would sound like he was just making an assumption, and yet there were those who could confidently back and provide evidence for such a claim. Back then it would have sounded dogmatic to say the earth was a sphere. Well, then I suppose it's okay to be dogmatic sometimes when you are right and you have the evidence on your side. It's just as dogmatic to assert the earth is a sphere today, and yet we have no qualms about it.

  What are assumptions to you is merely lack of knowledge on your part. If you would educate yourself on the theories you are talking about, you would see the evidence and the reasoning behind the "assumptions" as you call them. You will find, with education, that scientists rarely do ever dogmatically assert what is uncertain. Yet they are not afraid to talk confidently about theories which have been tested over and over again to the point that they are common knowledge.

  Remember that if there is one thing that the scientific method has taught us, it's that our intuition is usually wrong when it comes to areas in which we have little exposure. So just because something might sound crazy to you, doesn't mean that it's automatically wrong. It just means that your brain is not used to thinking about how things really are because you are used to thinking "intuitively".

  I agree that the questions you are asking are extremely basic and can be answered by you doing a little bit of homework. It's not fair to expect people on this board to spoon-feed you the information. We've pointed out an area where you are ignorant of the latest scientific findings, now it's up to you to fill that knowledge gap. That's what we had to do! You have no business finding "flaws" in scientific theories that you know nothing about. How would you like me to tell you that you run your business wrong when I don't know the first thing about what you do? It's ludicrous.

  rem

  P.S. Some books that helped me are:
  Five Ages of the Universe, Fred Adams and Greg Laughlin
  Six Easy Pieces and Six Not So Easy Pieces, Richard Feynman

  'A scientific opinion is one which there is some reason to believe is true; an unscientific opinion is one which is held for some reason other than its probable truth.' - Bertrand Russell
• 

  Julie

  Hi Rem,

  You suggested D. Wiltshire read:

  Five Ages of the Universe, Fred Adams and Greg Laughlin

  I wonder if there is any relation to a Douglas Adams who wrote a book that helped me to better understand the universe. He wrote A Hitch-hiker's Guide to the Universe. I highly recommend it.

  Regards,
  Julie
• 

  rem

  Julie,

  You know I've heard so much about that book/series but I've never read it. I hear it's great. That's it - it's now going on my Amazon.com Wish List! :)

  Not sure if there is any relation, though.

  Thanks!

  rem

  'A scientific opinion is one which there is some reason to believe is true; an unscientific opinion is one which is held for some reason other than its probable truth.' - Bertrand Russell
• 

  larc

  D Wiltshire,

  You said that you have read the work of scientists. I have the impression that you have some scientific information, but may not have read books that help pull the information together, as it were. Others have recommended books. I would like to recommend another. The title is: E=MC Squared. The title is the equation. Sorry, I can't do the exponent on Web TV. I forgot the author's name, but I am sure you can find the book. The book is a fascinating account of the evolution of science over the past 200 years.

  Although I have taken college level courses in chemistry and physics, the book helped put information together in a way that I had not understood before.
• 

  D wiltshire

  Lark, Rem, Julie and others,

  I'm not saying evolution is not True.
  I'm not looking for where to find information, I can find tons of it on the internet and local libraries.
  I just proposed a situation in this thread and an outcome that I thought reasonable. If you read the start of my thread you will see it is true. It doesn't mean I beleive what I propose is the truth. I don't like to think in terms of black and white.
  Life and answers to some very important questions has variables that make answers difficult and leaves us searching.
  My feelings are that when some one claims to know the answers, question him with hard questions, and see how they answer.

  Some I think took some offense, and intimated that I was a lazy person who sat on his fat ass and didn't have to go to work for a living.
  Also that I had very little education, didn't know what I was talking about, was rude, and probablly a Troll.

  I guess if you have a weak position make the person who raises an issue look unreliable, dumb, and any other thing that is unfavorable.

  If someone lived a trillion X longer than you, and had a billion X more reasoning ability would he come to the same conclusions as you?
• 

  larc

  D Wiltshire,

  I did not use any adjectives you mentioned above. I did, however, ask you to give one example of an assertion you made. Do you plan to answer my request?
• 

  hillary_step

  Larc & David,

  'E=MC Squared', I think that this is David Bodanis book that you allude to - a very interesting read that shows the historical forefathers of the infamous equation, and their impact on the social world.

  David, one needs to remember that science has no emotion, though scientists do. That is why scientific findings need to be scrutinised, evaluated and passed through the fire before reaching acceptablity in the scientific world. Sometimes this can take decades.

  It seems that one negativity that we often take away with us from our WTS lives, is a distrust of things that we were conditioned to view as our enemies. Science that contradicted WTS teachings was one enemy that we were conditioned to react against. Science is not a conspiratorial discipline, as many religionists would prefer to believe, their viewpoints often being motivated by fear of an impending crisis of faith.

  There is a place for spirituality in science, the two can even benefit one another, but both must be honest with each other and as you may discover, while scientists can be dishonest, science cannot. For example, it was not theologians who discovered the 'Piltdown Man' as having been a fraud, it was other scientists.

  A useful starting point in developing an understanding of this whole rather complex issue is contained in the book, 'The Phenomenon Of Man' by Teilhard de Chardin. Again, a very inspiring read.

  Hope that you are both well - HS
• 

  OUTLAW

  I`m not getting in on the argument,but I will say Steven Hawking has informative books on this subject...OUTLAW