Non-evidence reasons why people embrace Evolution.
People believe in correct things for silly reasons all the time, Hoobster. Doesn't mean that the things aren't right in themselves.
BTS
Non-evidence reasons why people embrace Evolution.
by hooberus 282 Replies latest jw friends
-
BurnTheShips
-
AGuest
There are terms for what you and dear Zid have posted last, dear LC (peace to you both!). It's called "skirting around the issue." Or "answering a question with a question, while not answering the question." Or, simply, straw man.
Look, I am not trying to have an evolutionist vs. creationist "debate". I really am trying to understand how what many believe "proves" evolution based on common ancestry of one species with another species... does so. How things like adaptation of bacteria (which maintains it species) and fossils of an entirely different homo species (if indeed such exist, but I am will to concede they do, for now) proves... as biological evolution is supposed to prove... that the homo sapien species "evolved" from some other species (which IS the premise) to be come the sapien species. Note, I have NO problem with evolution WITHIN the species, as I have stated many times.
So, c'mon, quit stalling or I'm going to have no choice but to relegate you to the same category as those "christians" who place BLIND faith in what others tell them is true as to what they believe, even though the Bible... or evidence... doesn't state/prove it, at all. You gonna enlighten me or not? If so and you don't mind, let's start with my question(s) to dear Bohm, Cofty (peace to you both, as well!) and others, posted here:
http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/bible/203619/3/Evolution-in-a-Theological-context
I am ready when you are.
In the meantime, again, peace to you, truly!
YOUR servant and a slave of Christ,
SA
-
Gerard
Yes, Gerard; thanks for posting that!!!
For those wanting to see the real agenda of the Discovery Institute (eg: Intelligent Design campaign) take a look at this hacked document and Wiki article: Wedge Strategy.
Believe it or not, the movement wishes to seize power (political, religious and cultural) in USA through the use of extreme fanatic religion.
-
Mad Dawg
Bohm said:
Its whining and moaning to point out the main claim of the article is not testable and not supported by any evidence or theory?
It is when you do the same thing, refuse to answer simple questions, answer questions that were not asked instead of the one that was, accuse me of saying things I haven't said, and then complain about someone else doing it.
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,
Indeed you did, but that didn't answer the question that was asked.
i cannot say if i use information in the same sence as the author.
Very good and what took you so long to say that?
Your question is not a valid yes/no question.
Granted, yes/no doesn't cover the full spectrum in this case. Still, what took you do long to say "I don't know"? Any 8 year old would have said "I don't know" the first time.
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.
And what? Have you noticed that I am not talking about the author or the article?
Since you even seem to agree with me that the article…
I don't know how you reached that conclusion when I have previously stated that I have not read the article and that I was not commenting on the article. I have said so using simple grammar. You really should brush up on your reading and comprehension.
i dont understand why you are so hell-bend on accusing me of being pedantic, whining, moaning and god knows what else.
Because that is what you do in addition to misquoting, answering questions that weren't asked instead of the one that was, and playing three card monte with the words "useful" and "information" (or, are you going to tell me that "useful" and "information" are synonyms?), and reading into statements things that simply aren't there.
Bohm said earlier:
(E)volution CAN create information.
I responded with:
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.
Very well, here is the whole quote from your post #2345 on page two of this thread:
MD: ...and you cant refute that the central term in the article remain undefined. The word "Information" is merely used to restate the conclusion as an argument; nothing is added because nothing is defined in a meaningfull way.
and evolution CAN create information, it is observed in the laboratory.
Despite your poor grammar, it was obvious that the quote I used was a sentence unto itself. It has no connection to the previous sentence. Deleting the phrase at the end did not change what was left. The only actual change I made was to drop the "and" and capitalize the "e". I hid nothing when I did it. In fact, I used parenthesis to ensure people saw what I had done. Further, it is a standard practice.
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?
Go back and reread your post my statement was actually referring to.
then more add-hominem
Have you figured out yet, that I am not talking about the article, or do I need to say it a few more times?
What a noble goal.
Thank you. Somebody has to pull on the hip boots wade through your polemic bull.
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?
Exactly. It is refreshing to know that you actually understood that as an example of what I was talking about.
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.
Typical JW responses. If you weren't a JW, you hung around them too long.
-
Lion Cask
Congratulations on your lucid, to the point post, Shelley.
I do apologise for skirting around the issue. You are quite right. I am. After going back and reading scores of your posts I have no enthusiasm for entering into a long conversation with you. Your faith is manifestly graven in stone. The prospect of exhaustive debate with someone who has already made his (in your case, her) mind up is not an appealing use of my time. Besides, my motives for joining this board are not to indulge myself in debate, and I am splitting my time in here as well as other sites, most notably jwfacts.com. While conversation that is informative or entertaining might be a happy byproduct, I'm here to educate myself on the WTS in an effort to extricate members of my family from its grip. It matters not to me if they abandon or retain their Christian faith, but it does matter to me that they see the WTS for what it is. That I know for certain you understand.
However, please allow me to ask a direct and focussed question the answer to which might help me understand where your head is at. On a number of trips to NYC I've taken the opportunity to spend hours upon hours in the Hall of Human Origins where I've examined exceptional examples of hominid fossils, including Neanderthal specimens. Neanderthals are regarded by some anthropologists as a subspecies of modern humans - homo sapiens neanderthalensis - and by others as a separate human species homo neanderthalensis. Whichever latin moniker you choose, the fossil evidence is that Neanderthals were physiologically much different from modern humans.
What is your take on Neanderthals?
-
bohm
MD: Look, what the heck are you trying to accomplish? Your post is one long attack on my character, i argue like i jw, i whine, i moan, i have poor grammar, i write polemic bull and yada yada yada.
My engagement in this thread has been because a supposedly scientific article was posted. The article was about a subject i think is very interesting, and i attacked the article because i believed it was completely wrong. I believe i have debunked the article completely, and demonstrated the author is making an unscientific claim that amount to nothing else than intimidating language.
What about you? What are you doing?
You dont seem to defend the article, its not even clear if you agree with the author or not (and you have not read it). Rather you seem to single me out and, well, show the world what a bad person i am to argue with?
So you find a question for me, namely if a word in the article has some specific meaning, and you keep asking me this even though i 6 pages back said i dont know what the author mean by that word. Its not a valid question -- i cannot answer it. Surely you must see that. So i point that out to you again and again -- i cant answer your question, i dont know what meaning the author assign to that word.
Then i finally give the answer you want me to say - "I dont know" - and you parade it around like you have accomplished something by making me say those words. but surely you could have told yourself this from the beginning. And what have you accomplished? It does not invalidate what i wrote about the article, and i simply dont see what it show about me.
The best part is you accuse me of being polemic, argue over words, etc. etc. etc., but who are talking about science and who are arguing over words?
It seem to me you have given up on actually arguing science, and you are now accusing others of engaging in polemic bullshit when what you have done for the past couple of days is clearly not science, rather about character and about silly questions.
If you want people to take you more serious, you should drop the fancy slogans ("rocks turning into men") and begin to talk about something with real content.
meh
-
cofty
So, c'mon, quit stalling or I'm going to have no choice but to relegate you to the same category as those "christians" who place BLIND faith in what others tell them is true as to what they believe, even though the Bible... or evidence... doesn't state/prove it, at all. You gonna enlighten me or not? If so and you don't mind, let's start with my question(s) to dear Bohm, Cofty (peace to you both, as well!) and others, posted here: - AGuest
Shelby, that is a very vague challenge. Are you asking us to explain evolution to you in ten minutes?
I have been studying evolution and natural history in general for about 10 years. For most of my life I thought I was an expert on evolution and embarrassingly I used to debate the subject with others. When I finally began to read real science I was blown away by how amazing it was and by how many misguided views I had bought into previously. I now see you and others parroting the same creationist clichés. This fantasy about micro and macro evolution is a classic example, I know you don't use those terms but that is exactly what you are talking about.
The evidence for the common origin of all living things is so vast where would we begin? The evidence is multi-faceted and includes fields like palaeontology, geology, comaprative anatomy, biology, embryology, genetics and much, much more. I honestly believe there is no more interesting subject in the world. Personally I decided to do the work to read the sources for myself - and the opposing voices - and make my own decision. It was a long process. I could write you a list of some of the books I found most helpful if you like. Until you have a sound understanding of the basics its very difficult to have a productive dialogue with you about it. Its clear from some of your comments that you are as woefully ignorant of the subject as I was 10 years ago, and I don't mean that as an insult in any way.
If you have a very specific question then I'm sure many others like myself would be happy to address it but the only way forward is for you to commit to examining the evidence for yourself.
Perhaps you could tell me the titles of any books on the subject that you have studied so far - those written by evolutionists not creationists.
-
TD
Chelle,
Note, I have NO problem with evolution WITHIN the species, as I have stated many times.
Are you using the word "species" in a looser than Linnaean sense? Perhaps as an equivalent to the Biblical "Kind?" -Just tryin to understand
"Species" is a catagoriztion that is inherently arbitrary because it is applied to every known form of life on earth. What I mean by this is that the conditions and criteria that constitute a breeding group among plants are very different than among animals. Many plants simply scatter their pollen to the wind. With animals, some fairly elaborate behavior patterns are involved and animals can be very picky about choosing a mate.
For example, a change in color or plumage or song that might seem trivial to you or me can be extremely important when perceived through the eyes and ears of a bird. In the wild, when one group of birds cannot or will not mate with another group of birds, they are legitimately classified as two different species regardless of how closely related they are genetically. (i.e. Regardless of whether they are actually fertile together or not.)
Even the way an altricial chick holds its head and the sounds it makes can be a reproductive barrier. If the chick does not behave just right, the parent(s) will refuse to feed it. I've bred exotic finches as a hobby and it's a problem you run into sometimes when two closely related species cross. There's nothing wrong with the chick --it just doesn't behave the way the parents are genetically programmed to expect. That's how trivial a species division can be. All it takes is a reproductive barrier.
-
AGuest
What is your take on Neanderthals?
I don't really have a "take", dear LC (again, peace to you!). I do find it interesting that some consider them a subspecies of homo sapien, while others consider them an entirely different species altogether... while some said they only ate meat, but apparently they not only ate vegetation, but cooked it first... while some opine that homo sapien evolved/divulged from them, yet apparently we interbreed with them (per the lastest reports)...
Whar's your take?
Again, peace to you!
A slave of Christ,
SA
-
ziddina
"... and fossils of an entirely different homo species (if indeed such exist, but I am will to concede they do, for now) proves... as biological evolution is supposed to prove... that the homo sapien species "evolved" from some other species (which IS the premise) to be come the sapien species. ..."
AGuest... Shelley/Shelby [which is it????)
Dear, I wasn't "skirting" the issue, I was making a comment aside to Lion Cask... Since I am a Western woman married to a Southern man, I can se how people who aren't familiar with or comfortable with the "Southern" style of speech, could find your method of communication - shall we say, daunting??? Overwhelming???
As to "Homo species" - let's use the CORRECT terminology, "HOMINID" species - first of all...
Secondly, let me pull up some links for you...
Here's a decent website..... http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/humans/humankind/o.html
Note that when you click on the link, you are AUTOMATICALLY on the most recent form of hominids - Homo Sapiens - us... The text discussing the age and fossil finds of Homo Sapiens will be BELOW a listing of the other types of hominids - titled "The Hominid Family Tree" - the lettering is a green or aqua color.... You can click on each one of those species of hominids to see the time span wherein they existed and what their territories - areas of habitation - were.
Just something to get you started...
By the way, when I observe the fossilized skull bones of - say, Neanderthals, as compared to so-called 'modern' humans, there are CLEAR differences in the skull structures.
Sometimes I even see a person on the street who seems to bear a strong resemblance to Neanderthal skull structure... Which makes me wonder about one of the current theories on the 'disappearance' of the Neanderthals... I suspect that there is a strong possibility that some remnants of the Neanderthals may have interbred with Homo Sapiens...
And I just read your latest comment... Yes, some anthropologists theorize that there was some inter-breeding between Neanderthal and Homo Sapiens... I fancy that I occasionally see evidence of that, myself. Of course, REAL evidence will probably come as the science of genetics advances - and the ability to read genetic materials from fossilized bones is developed and improved...
If I recall correctly, currently DNA specialists aren't able to extract readable DNA samples from Neanderthal bones... The fossilization process - even the mere passage of time - degrades the DNA to the point that it's unreadable, at least, while using current techniques...
Anyway, Happy reading, and I hope you come away with an increased knowledge of the information available on hominid evolution...
Zid