evolution question

by outsmartthesystem 165 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  gubberningbody

  Newchapter,

  Why you keep getting concerned about "god" is beyond me. It's as if the only other conclusion you can come up with to explain the novelty of biodiversity must be:

  point mutations+natural selection/time

  When an argument for a position fails, it doesn't win because of a philosophical position previously held, it wins because it has been demonstrated.

  The second thing is that you speak of "science" as if "science" were a pristine angel, rather than a method.

  There is no "science" in that matter of speaking, and there are no "scientists" either.

  There is the scientific method, and people can engage in the use of this method.

  QED.

  If you'd like to learn more about the process I'd suggest two books:

  

  1. http://www.amazon.com/Popper-Selections-Sir-Karl-Raimund/dp/0691020310

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper

  

  2. http://www.amazon.com/Structure-Scientific-Revolutions-Thomas-Kuhn/dp/0226458083

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Structure_of_Scientific_Revolutions
• 

  NewChapter

  Why you keep getting concerned about "god" is beyond me. It's as if the only other conclusion you can come up with to explain the novelty of biodiversity must be:

  point mutations+natural selection/time

  And yet, if new knowledge comes along to falsify this understanding, I will adjust my views. For that matter, I will do a little dance. I will devour all credible writings on the matter. I will celebrate our increasing knowledge. I accept that there is more to come. No theory wins by default. It only holds as long as it can't be disproven. You cannot compare science to religion. Religion seeks to hang onto the old understandings. Science seeks to disprove them--even its own.

  Have you worked to disprove your god theory?

  NC
• 

  bohm

  I can come up with a 3rd explanation for biodiversity: gnomes did it!

  why will noone take that unsupported and badly formulated idea serious?
• 

  NewChapter

  cuz we lack faith.
• 

  NewChapter

  But thinking about it, I say your gnome theory should get equal time in the schools. We could split it evenly with evolution, ID, gnome theory, and the growing belief that earth was set up extraterrestials and a protected habitat for mosquitoes. It would be fun to watch the ID's battle with the Mosquitoes.
• 

  bohm

  yah! teach the controversy :-)
• 

  gubberningbody

  Newchapter,

  Once again you bring in "god", when I never in any post mentioned it.

  I must quote myself:

  "Why you keep getting concerned about "god" is beyond me. It's as if the only other conclusion you can come up with to explain the novelty of biodiversity must be:

  point mutations+natural selection/time"

  Credibility is a function of the mind of the one giving credit. Too often the limitations of credibility are the limitations of the mind.

  As regards the comparisons between religion and science, this is a thing that is your concern not mine, but since it is your concern I think you should attend to that.

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism
• 

  NewChapter

  Once again you bring in "god", when I never in any post mentioned it.

  No G, but this has been trick of semantics that has been used for some time now. Creationists knew that their religious view could not be taught in the schools. So they replaced "god" and "creation" with the term intelligent design. Since you insist on some kind of mind, this would indicate intelligence, and it would indicate design. Now it may be that the terms "design", "god", "creation" and so forth are not being used to hide the basic argument---that a greater being is behind creation. Because you know the minute you bring up one of those terms, you will be dismissed. Just like creationists knew that using the terms would have them dismissed. I just cut through the words.

  NC
• 

  gubberningbody

  Newchapter,

  What you say about others is perhaps true, but it must be admitted that even the "devil" has his good points.

  In defense of the devil in all this is the business of your own "mind".

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGR4SFOimlk

  What evidence do you have to prove to others that this epiphenomenon of your own "mind" is not just simple chemistry and physics?

  If you've accepted your own, then why accept that others likewise give evidence of "mind"?

  It strikes me that the denial of mind is a tad inconsistent in denying the phenomenon of mind to all other percieved entities save this version of naked ape.
• 

  NewChapter

  What you say about others is perhaps true, but it must be admitted that even the "devil" has his good points

  It only must be admitted by those that believe in the great big boogie man. All I have to admit is that people have fabricated a monster with a few good traits. Loved Pacino in that role though. I wasn't all that crazy about the movie, but his performance made it watchable.

  NC