Non-evidence reasons why people embrace Evolution.

by hooberus 282 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Mad Dawg

  Bohm, you haven't answered these questions:

  · In the above statement, are you referring to the same use of "information" as in the article?

  · If yes, then what is all the noise about?

  · If no, then what is the point of the above statement?

  Bohm said:

  because there are different constructs that one can call "information" the first clear sign the author is bullshitting is when he does not point out which construct he use (or if he is inventing one himself).

  Which construct are you using for "bullshit"? Was the statement "evolution makes information" bullshit when written because you didn't define your terms? But now is it un-bullshit because the terms are now defined? You don't define your terms prior to using them, how do you expect definitions for everything from everyone you disagree with?

  The central point is if evolution can create something "usefull" out of something which is not "usefull" (for example a new proteine).

  I still have yet to read the article in question. However, isn't the article about information, not usefulness?

  In my area are numerous natural gas wells. If you ask the geologists how they pick a site to drill they say nothing about evolution. What they talk about is features that are currently visible. typically they are looking for a certain type of hill. When they find a candidate they drill a shaft and set off an explosion in it. They take readings from sensor placed in the area.

  Evolution may come into play if you were to ask them how it got there. It has no bearing on finding it. Same holds true for other mineral deposits.
• 

  Lion Cask

  IMHO, it would, dear LC (peace to you!), but I notice that when someone like myself does, we are labled as "crazy" (by both those who claim to believe and those who don't).

  But you have endured nevertheless, Shelley. March 26, 2001 is going on a decade now. (And you still haven't adopted an avatar?) You are at the very least a tough old bird. There is a fine line between genius and insanity, after all. I hope I will never be so ungracious to accuse you of insanity when from my perspective all of us are insane to some degree. If I should waiver and call you nuts, you have my permission to call me a hypocrite. (I was going to use the pot/kettle analogy, but I glean from reading your posts that that might not be appropriate.)

  And I will read your contributions as I encounter them, as I have just now, but the depth to which I will truly read and digest them, at least until I discern that you have something truly unique and enlightening to contribute, will be directly proportional to their length. That, I think you might agree, is not entirely unreasonable. I hope not to be indelicate, (and please be assured that you are not the only one - there are some long time posters in here who have piqued my interest with their apparent intellect and for that reason have prompted me to seek out threads they have started, only to lose me at the getgo by writing massive tomes unrealistically demanding far too much of my time) but you do have a tendency to, um, draw the point out a bit beyond my attention span. My fault, perhaps, but you need not provide a feast at every sitting, my dear.

  Last thought. Rhetoric is not evidence. Evidence is observable and measurable and that is the key to admission into my brain and others of my bent. Show me the evidence.

  Peace back atcha, sister.

  Edit: You're not one of those at the far right of the bell curve, are you? 100% convinced? If so, we have nothing to talk about.
• 

  bohm

  MD: To answer your question, I highly doubt the author is using information in the same sence as the general litterature because it would make his claims trivially invalid, which i have pointed out a few times now.

  But my point is that the author is not telling us what he mean by information, and therefore it is impossible to test his claims. The author, to, does not provide any evidence for his claims (theoretically or imperically). At the end of the day, the author could just have saved the fancy language and said: "Evolution cannot do what i dont think it can do because it cant".

  As for your other questions, "bullshit" mean something is wrong and or stupid, and it often carry the meaning it is delibrately so. I can give you an example: "asking me what bullshit mean is a bullshit question because you bloody well know that".

  And rather than letting me tell you what the article is about, why dont you read it for yourself and make up your own mind?
• 

  AGuest

  Evidence is observable and measurable

  I agree, dear LC (again, peace to you!); however, I'm not sure if we agree as to "observable and measurable" by what? I think that's where the two groups get... ummmm... all befuddled with one another.

  you need not provide a feast at every sitting, my dear.

  I know, I know - . Sorry, but I'm kind of a "Martha" in that way (i.e., you come to my house, you're gonna get fed). It's how I show my "luv" - LOLOLOLOLOL!

  You're not one of those at the far right of the bell curve, are you? 100% convinced?

  100% convinced? Yes, at this time. But I don't think your statement "absolute theists who will not under any circumstances entertain the slightest notion that there might not be a God" is accurate. To be honest, I had to entertain that thought to believe there WAS a God. At least, I did (I can't speak for others). Because what if I didn't find Him (or, rather, Him me)?

  If so, we have nothing to talk about

  Golly, I hope that's not the case. Sort of reminds me of the whole WTBTS mindset: they can ask YOU questions and you can read THEIR literature, but you can't ask THEM questions and they're certainly not going to read YOUR literature. I see nothing wrong with someone being 100% convinced, dear one. Nothing to fear there. I am 100% convinced that men went to the moon. But I wouldn't crumble in a heap tomorrow if some investigative reporter uncovered that it was all a hoax. Fear is what keeps ones from entertaining the thoughts and beliefs of others. I believe, however, if one IS 100% right... or, let's say, convicted... then nothing should be able to move that conviction. So... what's to fear?

  Now, I get that you may not want to debate... for debate's sake. Me either (arghhh!). But if one really does want to "help" me understand evolution, acting like the WTBTS and saying, "Well, if you're here then there's no point in me even talking to you," is... well, probably best. I happen to think it's a cop-out, but what do I know?

  Again, peace to you!

  A slave of Christ,

  SA, who marvels that even yet, no one's offered any counter statements or answers to my questions on evolution. Curious...
• 

  Gerard

  Creationism is the Kentuky snake-handlers' newest fad:

  

  

  

  They remain based in Kentuky.
• 

  ziddina

  "You can go back to the begining of civilization to Sumer and the story of Jehovah and Satin is there in the Epic of Gilgamesh.

  Also the story of Noah and the Flood. All the players had Sumerian names. ..."

  Sumerian civilization is around 2,000 years older than the bible... Interestingly, the Sumerian civilization was centered between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers... Their farming methods were very advanced; they had developed a veritable agricultural "Garden of Eden", while the Israelites were still a loosely-consolidated group of sheep-herding tribes..

  Oh, and by the way??? The Sumerians didn't worship ANY version of the Hebrew gods... Not "El", not "Yahweh", not "Jehovah"...

  The Sumerians worshipped a PANTHEON of gods and goddesses - but PRIMARILY the Goddess Inanna - perhaps better known to you bible readers by her Babylonian name, Istar....

  By the way, the name "Ishtar" is found in the bible - but modified slightly...

  Ever heard of "ESTHER"...???

  Yet another example of older mythologies being plagiarized by bible writers to give THEIR theology the illusion of great antiquity...

  Zid
• 

  Mad Dawg

  I didn't ask what the article is about. Do you remember saying:

  (E)volution CAN create information.

  My question was whether you were using the same definition of information as the author of the article or not. Simple question asked using simple grammar.

  The "response" has been nothing but typical obfuscation on your part. A specific question is asked and you answer one that wasn't asked. Just as you did with substituting "useful" for "information". How can we get to the article you wish to discuss if we can't get past your slight-of-hand muddying of the waters.
• 

  Gerard

  "Creationism is as much a political movement as a religious one. For example, the "wedge" strategy of Phillip Johnson and the Discovery Institute is funded by Howard F. Ahmanson Jr. and his wife Roberta. Ahmanson supports Christian Reconstructionism, which seeks to replace American democracy with a fundamentalist theocracy. In the society he favors, the death penalty would be required for "offenders" such as witches, homosexuals, incorrigible children, and people who disagree with the state religion (Benen 2000; Forrest and Gross 2004, 22-23,265-267). "
• 

  Lion Cask

  Golly, I hope that's not the case. Sort of reminds me of the whole WTBTS mindset: they can ask YOU questions and you can read THEIR literature, but you can't ask THEM questions and they're certainly not going to read YOUR literature. I see nothing wrong with someone being 100% convinced, dear one.

  It seems almost you come across as a kind of gunslinger. I could almost suspect you've taken a mind to make me see things the way you do, because you're 100% convinced you would prevail. And the reference to the WTS is maybe a little ironic. I don't want to convince you of anything, my dear. You've got to get there by yourself and for that you need to open your mind. I've been where you are and I was there a long, long time. Have you been where I am? Would you want to be where I am, if you were to arrive at the realisation that what you believe is an illusion? No. Didn't think so.
• 

  ziddina

  Yes, Gerard; thanks for posting that!!!

  The Founding Fathers of America were TOO familiar with the effects of religious fanaticism; that's why they incorporated a strict NON-religious stance into the legal and political foundations of America...

  Some of these creationists need to be sent back in time to 1500's Spain, or 1600's Salem... Just to remind them why religion's ONLY place is within its own buildings of worship; not in secular classrooms and CERTAINLY not in the POLITICAL realm!!!

  Zid