Theistic Evolution

by cofty 195 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  cofty

  ninja_matty69 - perhaps you could explain your obscure use of the term "extrapolation theory". I have never heard it used in this context.

  I thought there were people in this room who believed evolution was a more likely and better documented explanation to our existence than the biblical creation model - NM69

  Evolution is a fact.

  It has moved on a great deal in the past 150 years since Darwin published "Origin of Species". Darwin was extremely modest about his conclusions back then. No such modesty would now be required.

  Sulla , BTS and others I just want to thank you for being willing to share your beliefs here.

  Like Peacefulpete suggested I would want to add the hiddeness of god as something that would count against TE in my mind. I also think he is right that there is a distinct difference between the rational, evidence-based beliefs of a believing sceintist and the other part of his/her worlview that believes in something beyond the natural world.

  If I'm right Sulla I think you don't see a difference - " I don't think pure reductionism is a useful way to interpret reality. "

  BTS expalined his conviction in cosmism above and admitted that although it is neither contradicted or supported by current science he finds it to be useful and it gives him happiness and drive. Its hard to object to that sort of honesty.

  I think as atheists its important to see the difference between the anti-scientific position of Fundamental christianity and ID/creationism and the more sophisiticated positions we have seen here.
• 

  cofty

  ninja_matty69 - Our posts overlapped.

  Your suggestion that evolution depends on an extrapolation of "micro-evolution" may have been partly true 150 years ago.

  It could not be more wrong today. You need to read something that has been written since 1860.
• 

  ninja_matty69

  Cofty

  Like what? Are you suggesting macro evolution has occured in the past 150 years and has been observed?

  I am well aware the likes of dawkins have suggested speciation (perhaps this could be described as macro evolution) has occured through isolation by distance rather than darwins model of isolation by time.

  But dawkins herring gull is i'm afraid the ultimate fail. The theory is still theory. There is no evidence of macro evolution. Nobody has ever observed it like we have observed the effects of gravity etc.
• 

  cofty

  ninja_matty69 - Oh dear so many blunders in one short post.

  Before I get into it with you could you please tell us specifically which books on the subject of biological evolution, written by real scientists have you studied recently?

  Thanks.
• 

  ninja_matty69

  Really. We are all awaiting your startling new information about observed macro evolution... We are all awaiting your new information that the herring gull is really a true example of speciation by isolation... Waiting...
• 

  cofty

  Actually we are not "all" waiting at all. Everybody who has posted on this thread, including the christians, accepts the fact of evolution.

  My question about which books on the subject of biological evolution, written by real scientists have you studied recently was a serious one.

  Science is complicated, I want to know where we are starting from.

  PS - I didn't mention Herring Gulls, you did.
• 

  ninja_matty69

  You say i made blunders? I am waiting as are others to see what part of my mail you are mocking? Do not mock unless you are sure of yourself.

  Where am i starting from? I am saying evolution is based on empirical evidence of micro evolution. This scientific data from observations over the past couple of centuries is then extrapolated over the vast millenia life has been said to be evolving. There is no empirical evidence of or observed macro evolution. Dawkins tried in one of his books to use the herring gull to show how we have this evidence of macro evolution in our time. He said the herring gull develops pre zygotic barriers through evolution and can no longer breed with other distant cousins, thereby breeding a new and distinct species incapable of breeding with one another. This is speciation which probably falls between micro and macro somewhere (not sure exactly). He likened this scientific observation to the ape/man controversy. But he was wrong - the herring gull complex is a fake. His scientific observations are nothing more than an example of his faith, based upon hope. His attempt was to try and show macro evolution through speciation through isolation. Previously darwins evolution was based upon speciation over time. This problem meant that nobody had empricical data because the evolution he was describing only occured through minor changes over millenia. Sure punctuated equalibrium has been promoted to help cover the cracks in darwins original theory that it was always gradual but this is in itself still another baseless theory. Who has ever witnessed punctuated equalibrium? Without empirical data or scientific observation the theory is way below other theories that are used to describe observed phenomona such as gravity. My assertion is that it is less substantiated than the biblical creation model but theres another thread.

  How does such a baseless theory get taught in our schools as science is beyond my grasp. We might as well be teaching the moon is flat.
• 

  cofty

  I see you have avoided my question.

  I will discuss the topic with you at length once you do so. I am not mocking or being disrespectful, I really want to know how much evolution you have studied so far.
• 

  NewChapter

  Baseless?

  I'm with Cofty now. Exactly how much have you studied evolution?
• 

  cofty

  I think Ninja_matty may have left the buiding.

  evolution is based on empirical evidence of micro evolution - NM69

  Where did you read that Matty?

  How about paleontology, comparative anatomy, embryology, geology, biogeography and most importantly of all - genetics?

  If you would like to discuss it or if you want a reading list feel free to ask. It may be the most rewarding subject you will ever investigate.