Non-evidence reasons why people embrace Evolution.

by hooberus 282 Replies latest jw friends

AGuest

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.
No, dear LC (again, peace to you!)... that is not my thinking at all. I have no ambition to make you do anything... or prevail. That's because, unlike a lot of others who believe they can convert another to "christianity", I TRULY believe the words of my Lord that "no one can come to the Father except through me," and "no one comes to the Son unless the Father draws them." I realize that a LOT of "christians" preach and proselytize because they wish to make "disciples." And I don't take issue with that so long as what they're stating has some semblance of truth (which excludes JWs, now).
But I am not here to proselytize, convert, or make disciples. Of anyone. For anyone. I have one goal... and that is to tell the truth as to the Most Holy One of Israel, JAH of Armies, and His Son and Christ, my Lord, the Holy One of Israel and Holy Spirit, JAHESHUA MISCHAJAH. Whether folks hear or refrain. I do it out of love... and gratitude... and the hope that by "giving" in this way I can perhaps work out my salvation (and perhaps my household's), me a sinner (yet) and former hypocrite, who once walked in great darkness, alienated from God.
And I don't make that statement in mimic of any other, including other "christians" - I state it because I now know it is the truth. The ONLY thing that I could possibly have... or give... to the Most Holy One of Israel... and/or His Son... is to speak the truth about them whenever I speak about them.
And the reference to the WTS is maybe a little ironic. I don't want to convince you of anything, my dear.
No, I get that. I thought, however, your comments were about how both sides often overlook stating their own positions but stand on the shoulders of others. Which I totally agree with and so I shared that I try very hard not to do that but to speak from what I know. And am open if you wish to do the same thing, so long as we give one another the same regard and not reduce the discussion to petty anecdotes and childish name-calling.
You've got to get there by yourself and for that you need to open your mind.
Yes. Again, it is curious to me... and very reminiscent of the WTBTS... that "open mind" apparently means "be ready... and willing... to AGREE with me." Versus "be ready and willing to have a discussion and we'll see where we go." I have found, however, that like with JWs, with athesits it's very similar: it's not me who's afraid to "go."
I've been where you are and I was there a long, long time.
No, dear one, that's not possible. Where I WAS, perhaps. But where I AM... no sir, sorry. Of course, we've both probably been were some others are.
Have you been where I am?
I am not sure, because I don't now where you are. You haven't fully revealed that, so I can't say. I have no problem believing that I haven't, though. There are a WHOLE lot of places... and beliefs... where I haven't been.
Would you want to be where I am, if you were to arrive at the realisation that what you believe is an illusion?
You say that as if it would be the first time. It wouldn't. I arrived at the realization that the WTBTS' "golden calf" is an illusion. And some other revelations even before that which were even harder to grasp. But I got there. Each time. And I'm still standing. With my faith intact. Which I am not sure everyone can say (and many don't want to - which is fine by me).
No. Didn't think so.
You assume, dear one. You think I ask/invite because I am bluffing. I have no fear of what you might share, dear LC, and no agenda, truly. If God is with me, who can be against me? I should have nothing to fear. Heck, even walking through the valley of the shadow of death should be without fear - why not learning something about the physical universe. If He isn't and you're right, what have I lose but my belief system? This doesn't scare me.
I share what I do because it is the truth about God, Christ, spirits, things in the Bible, and things related. I do it because I was lied to and was a part of lying to others... about such persons/things. I have made a personal commitment, therefore... to myself, my children, my husband, my God... and my Lord... to NEVER lie to others about such things ever again... to state ONLY the truth, so long as and to the extent that I know it. It is the LEAST I can do.
And I do it, regardless of who listens, hears, believes, or accepts what I share. Because I am not doing it for them. Since I am no less human that you, however, I certainly know that I don't know the truth about such things. So, I must go to, listen to, and follow the One who does. That's it and that's all.
If you don't understand that, no worries - I totally understand that you might not.
Again, peace to you, truly!
YOUR servant and a slave of Christ,
SA
FlyingHighNow

There are most definitely social liberals who believe there is an intelligent designer rather than the life sprang from nothing theory.
Lion Cask

But you do go on and on, don't you?
Do you really want to know the truth? Or do you believe you know it already?
Good night, California.
ziddina

Aaaaaaaarrrgh...
Yes, one can tell that AGuest - Shelley - is a Southern lady...
S'okay, though... She gets to believe what she wants to believe... I think that she's so "strong" in her faith, that she doesn't need facts... As are so many other creationists...
Zid
bohm

MD: I answered you quite plainly and i dont know why you need to ask again and again. But here you go:
i dont know if i use the same definition as the author, because it is entirely unclear what definition the author use.
But IF the author use the definitions found in the general litterature (which is those i subscribe to), it would trivially invalidate his claims.
If you want to ask me the question for the 3rd time you will have to point out to me what definition the author is using, otherwise i can obviously not answer the question.
if this was a real article in a real scientific journal we would not be having this discussion because the author would have made it clear. But then again, a real article would also provide the least schred of evidence in favor of the claims which this article does not.
Mad Dawg

Actually, this is the first time you that have given a plain answer - "I don't know". All you have done so far is whine and moan about the author of said article and answer questions that weren't asked. If you don't know if you were using the same definition as the auhor of the article, why did you say:
(E)volution CAN create information.
Your statement implies that evolution can create the same information as what the article was talking about. Which would mean that you understood the definition the author was using. If this wasn't implied, then what was the point of the statement?

My whole point of this is to show that trying to carry on an intellectual exchange with you is an exercise in futility. Trying to pin you down as to what you mean on any given point is like trying to nail pudding to the wall. The experience has been not one bit different than trying to get JW's to answer a question they simply don't want to answer. They trained you well. Deny it if you wish, but JW's also deny what they do until they can take a step away from it.

My thanks goes to Freeminds.
Mad Dawg

Double
bohm

MD: "All you have done so far is whine and moan about the author of said article and answer questions that weren't asked."
Its whining and moaning to point out the main claim of the article is not testable and not supported by any evidence or theory?
As far as answering your question, i have pointed out again and again that when the author does not define what he mean by information, i cannot say if i use information in the same sence as the author. Your question is not a valid yes/no question. I am doing the author a favor here, because all common measures of information as defined and used in information theory trivially allow evolution to create information.
Since you even seem to agree with me that the article in question is not scientific and does not contain any scientifically testable claims, i dont understand why you are so hell-bend on accusing me of being pedantic, whining, moaning and god knows what else.
(E)volution CAN create information.
Your statement implies that evolution can create the same information as what the article was talking about. Which would mean that you understood the definition the author was using. If this wasn't implied, then what was the point of the statement?
First off, if your going to quote me, quote me correctly without the paranthesis. Second off, I am implying no such thing since my main point has been again and again the author does not define what he mean. How can you read it any differently?. To quote myself:
"As far as information you are right to point out the ambiguity. There are different constructs scientists and mathematicians call "information", the two most important ones is shannon information and kolmogorov complexity ...
Evolution (as defined above) increase the amount of information no matter which measure one use and it is trivial to demonstrate."
then more add-hominem
My whole point of this is to show that trying to carry on an intellectual exchange with you is an exercise in futility.
What a noble goal.
Trying to pin you down as to what you mean on any given point is like trying to nail pudding to the wall.
Like when you asked me what the word "bullshit" or "usefull" meant right after you accused me of being pedantic and arguing over words? I can refer you to the general litterature on the definitions i use if that will make it clearer
The experience has been not one bit different than trying to get JW's to answer a question they simply don't want to answer.
wtf?
They trained you well.
who are "they" who has trained me?
Deny it if you wish, but JW's also deny what they do until they can take a step away from it.
deny what? step away from what?
bleh.
ziddina

Bohm,in light of the conversation you're having with Mad Dawg, I find your new "Gravatar" very fitting...
bohm

Zid -- I love Dogbert. I flipped the image so he would excorsize my post; we can all need a bit of excorsism from time to time :-).
As for the conversation -- i got no idea whats going on really. Its a bit off-topic.

Non-evidence reasons why people embrace Evolution.

Share this