by Wolfgirl 86 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
So the theory of evolution which states that humans have a common origin with certain ancient fish (which we know to exist) is more silly than a theory of humans being specially created by some imagined supernatural entity (which cannot be proven to exist)? Yeah, which theory sounds silly now? Hint: One is falsifiable and one isn't.
rem
hawkaw you seem to be intelligent and know well the scientific method.
A. Seriously, should the idea that we came from fish be presented as:
1. a hypothesis
2. a scientific theory
3. a fact
B. Which of these 3 does your historical geology textbook present it as being?
1. Review the background information.
Joe: We need to prove we came from chemicals and fish
Pete: OK
2. Set up a methodology.
Joe: Let's make a primordial soup and charge it with masses of high voltage .
Pete: Kewl.
3. Test it and make observations.
ZAP!
Joe: Hmmm. It didn't work. Pete did you observe that?
Pete: Yep, that's what I observed.
4. Discus the observations
Joe: Pete, I think it didn't work, that's what I observed. You?
Pete: Yeah. Dead chemicals is still dead chemicals...
Joe: Hmm, are you sure?
Pete: Yep. Look for yourself.
Joe: Yep. Still dead.
5. Then come to the conclusions.
Joe: I think we came from chemicals and fish. Evolution ya know?
Pete: Yeah. Me too. Chemicals and fish. Kewl.
Joe: Yeah Kewl.
6. Make more recommendations for futher studies to test the hypothesis and of course allow a group of peers to review it.
Joe: I think we should do it again. You?
Pete: Yeah. Let's do it again. Hey, let's get Frank and Sam to watch too.
Joe: Yeah, they can confirm our hypothesis.
Pete: Yeah, cause sooner or later, chemicals become fish right?
Joe: Yeah, evolution ya know?
Pete: Yeah, kewl.
Joe: Kewl...
Edited by - pomegranate on 24 October 2002 23:0:32
I was never a JW,
The idea that humans decended from ancient fish-like creatures is a fact. The mechanism of how it happened is a theory. We call that theory "Evolution" and it contains several mechanisms, such as Natural Selection, Sexual Selection, Genetic Drift, etc.
Unfortunately with historical sciences, it is impossible to prove such things in a laboratory. Just as you cannot directly observe that all of the land masses were once combined into one giant continent, you cannot directly observe all of the minute steps of evolution. You can piece the fact of both ideas together with the overwhelming evidence, though. On the other hand, there is no evidence of special creation. Just wishful thinking.
rem
pomegranate
- You are killing me. The fish pictures and then that.
Ohh!!! I can hardly wait to see your references that you site in the bio
hoob,
I use a combination of journals, research papers and texts. Its NOT a fact nor is it "absolute" unlike your absolute beliefs. It is a conclusion based on tested evidence. But then the conclusion becomes another hypothesis again and either new evidence comes forward, or old evidence is tested again and confirmed or disregarded. Its a continual process and the more information we gather the better we can come to a conclusion.
Like I said quit mixing science with faith. That's your problem. You are trapped in the "box of absolute" and cannot critically think.
hawk
hawkaw,
Just because I have come to believe in creation does not mean that I am "trapped in a box" anymore than someone who has come to believe in macro-evolution.
I can think critically, I have read information from BOTH sides of the creation/evolution issue. I have more "pro-evolution" books in my house than "creationist" books. Just because I have come to a different conclusion than you doesn't mean that I am blinded by religious mis-guidance. I think that people should examine the facts from both models of origins. I at least try to understand the evolutionary viewpoint when I read their publications. My beliefs are no more dogmatic than rems. Read the first line of rems last post where the idea that we came from fish is stated dogmatically as a "fact". My historical geology textbook presents macro-evolution as a "fact" them proceeds to interpret geologic history through the "lens" of this "fact". This is no different than interpreting historical geology through the "lens" of creation. I do try to understand both models and am not a part of a tolatarian religious organization which forces me to believe in the biblical model of origins.
Edited by - hooberus on 25 October 2002 13:19:45
hooberus,
I'm just curious as to which evolution books you have. And which ones you have honestly read?
rem
I have always had a problem harmonizing the Theory of Evolution with that of creation. It has to be one or the other. And in my heart of hearts I would like evolution exposed as a great hoax. Yes I want to believe in a creator, and quite frankly I dont want my existence attributed to being the end product of a series of endless biological errors.
My problem is that the preponderance of the evidence to date is on the side of evolution; in fact its massive and growing all the time. I wonder, how we can overcome this?
Regrettably the strength of the creation argument seems not to be base on anything substantive and not empirical evidence, but rather is mostly based on the imperfection of Darwinism itself.
Darwinism is far from a perfect model in explaining the reality of evolution, but we are forced to admit it is a working model. You dont even need to go to the ends of the earth such as Darwin did to see these mechanisms in action, a number of fields of science clearly demonstrate some of the most basic precepts of the Darwin model.
What we who would like to believe in a special creation need is a working creation model. Unfortunately on our side, to date there is no model, perfect or otherwise. And I hate to be the bearer of bad news but if we ever are able to put forth such a model, it has to be nothing less then perfect. We dont have the luxury of having an imperfect model because anything less then Gods perfection is not acceptable.
I sure hope we can overcome all this evidence supporting evolution, but so far it doesnt look too good for our side.
Freeman
Edited by - freeman on 25 October 2002 14:31:56
Edited by - freeman on 25 October 2002 14:33:1
What evidence?
