Evolution Thread to continue conversation with BIOFLEX

by NewChapter 71 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  NewChapter

  Bioflex, I am starting this thread so that the other one doesn't get hijacked. Here is where you left off.

  bioflex please stop talking about evolution you are off topic and your ignorance of the subject is deeply embarassing. I can suggest some excellent books if you are interested)

  @cofty : i guess i now realize where the problem lies now, you claim i am ignorant about evolution but let me ask you, are you well educated about the bible?i could also suggest you some books and videos. Just what makes you think the books you want to suggest to me are spot on accurate? if there is anything i have learnt in this discussion its that many scientists have their doubts about evolution so what makes to think your sources are credible?.

  I dont want to go off topic here so dont push me. and dont think yourself highly than me because you think you are right. After all you do realize that in science you have to prove something before it is regarded as credible and none of your evolution books can boldly prove all it states.
• 

  NewChapter

  After all you do realize that in science you have to prove something before it is regarded as credible and none of your evolution books can boldly prove all it states.

  Now as I stated on the last thread, this statement is wrong. Science doesn't seek to prove so much as to disprove. So a person observes the natural world and comes up with a hypothesis. Then scientists do all in their power and knowledge to disprove the hypothesis. Most hypotheses die in this stage. If after repeated experiments and observations they cannot falsify the hypothesis, it graduates to theory. A THEORY is a rigorously tested hypothesis. It's a word that is misunderstood because it is used differently in common everday language. It is not a guess or a hunch, but an idea that so far cannot be proven wrong. As a theory the battle continues. As new knowledge is found, the theory continues to be tested not to see if it is TRUE but to test if it is untrue. If at any point it is falisified, then it must be adjusted or dismissed.

  The books you refer to, probably embrace Intelligent Design. ID is not scientific. It does not seek to disprove itself. Instead it seeks to disprove in an incredibly biased and unscientific way, evolution, and then to offer it's hypothesis as the only other option. If it really DID disprove evolution, then it could not honestly set itself up as the only alternative answer. It could only say it has disproved evolution--which it has not.

  The only way for ID to be intellectually honest is if it focused on itself and tried to disprove itself. ID does not do that---it starts with an absolute answer and forces everything to fit that answer and dismissses data that does not. Not scientific.

  Scientists HAVE tested ID though---and they have falsified it. It can't be adjusted so it is dismissed.

  Now if you'd like to look at ID in a religious or philisophical context, that's fine. But it does not hold up under scientific scrutiny. It is better to spend you energy focused on it in terms other than science.

  NC
• 

  cofty

  Let me suggest some useful reading for bioflex.

  Evolution - What the Fossils Say and Why it Matters - Donald Prothero

  • ISBN-10: 0231139624
  • ISBN-13: 978-0231139625

  Your Inner Fish - Neil Shubin

  • ISBN-10: 0141027584
  • ISBN-13: 978-0141027586

  The Greatest Show on Earth - Richard Dawkins

  • ISBN-10: 059306173X
  • ISBN-13: 978-0593061732

  Why Evolution is True - Jerry Coyne

  • ISBN-10: 0199230854
  • ISBN-13: 978-0199230853

  Life Ascending - Nick Lane

  • ISBN-10: 1861978189
  • ISBN-13: 978-1861978189

  The Making of the Fittest - Sean B. Carroll

  • ISBN-10: 1847247245
  • ISBN-13: 978-1847247247

  Its strange that believers think its fine to debate evolution even though they have not read anything about it from a reliable source. It may take you a year or two to get through these books but it will be time well spent. Just think how many years many have wasted reading ill-informed critiques of evolution by pseudo-scientists. You owe it to yourself to get the facts.
• 

  NewChapter

  The facts are mind blowing. I've spent most of the day catching up and studying for an anthropology exam, and it's some of the most exciting stuff I've learned yet. I can't believe I ever thought I had the knowledge to "debunk" evolution. The sad part about ID is it uses terms that couch the concept in pseudoscience, and makes the person reading think they are well-informed and schooled on the topic. But it doesn't even properly explain the scientific process. It's such a disservice.

  With our understanding of genetics and DNA---well it just makes the process so much more amazing.
  
  NC
• 

  NewChapter

  YOOOO HOOOOO BIOFLEX. Come over HERE!!! Don't hurt my feelings---I built this little house just for you, come check it out. We can't keep hijacking the morality thread with evolution discussion. Let's do this right!
• 

  bioflex

  Hmm, where do i even start.

  Now lets get to the button of this arguement okay. Let me ask you this, does science disprove God? if it does in what ways? I would be giving points to support my arguements.
• 

  NewChapter

  Science is not working to disprove god---only to find answers to things that happen in the NATURAL world. It concerns itself with what can be observed and tested. Many scientists believe in a god, but not evolution. Evolution is the topic.

  NC
• 

  unshackled

  bio...the theory of evolution offers no stance on whether there is a god or not. Many believe in the God of the Bible and accept evolution, including some on this forum.

  BUT evolution and a literal Genesis account are at odds. Is that your belief - the Genesis creation account is literal - and therefore your non-acceptance of evolution?
• 

  bohm

  bioflex: Does science disprove there is a magic pink unicorn on uranus? That the chocolate in my fridge can cure cancer?

  The word disprove is a red herring in a scientific context. Strictly speaking, science has not disproven any number of really silly things, but it is not a good argument to accept them as true and live ones live accordingly.
• 

  NewChapter

  Unshackled, I believe that is Bio's argument. On another thread, he/she called those that believed in evolution idiots and fools. However I don't believe it's understanding of evolution is comprehensive enough to make such a judgement call. For instance, it made the comment that it didn't believe that 2 separate species mated to make a chimp---something like that. The argument was that species cannot interbreed, so they can't combine to make a third species.

  We can educate Bio on speciation, but I think they may be out of posts. Looks like he/she are still under 100 and limited to 10 a day. Before Bioflex can argue against evolution, he/she should at least understand the principals. But I can guarantee this---those that teach evolution do not teach that 2 separate species mixed their genes to create chimpazees or any other species. Not sure where that understanding came from.

  The original comment is on the last page of this thread:

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/beliefs/217010/8/There-is-No-Morality-Without-God

  NC