hooberus

Joined

• started 119 topics
• posted 2,517 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by hooberus

• 
  172

  Evolution or Creation??

  by dottie in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  well i know i may be opening a can of worms here.... but after what we were taught in the wts about creation...and now that you may know more about evolution... which do you think you'd choose to believe more??.

  myself...i am leaning towards evolution...but then i read things that make me think otherwise.

  so i do find it confusing sometimes .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hooberus

  funkyderek, while it is possible to divide things into falsifable and unfalsifable scenarios. I think for the sake of simplicity it is probably better to divide them according to the general concepts of Evolution or Creation. For example if we are comparing the fossil record between the two models it is easier to expalin the data in terms of what we would expect from the general concepts.
• 
  172

  Evolution or Creation??

  by dottie in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  well i know i may be opening a can of worms here.... but after what we were taught in the wts about creation...and now that you may know more about evolution... which do you think you'd choose to believe more??.

  myself...i am leaning towards evolution...but then i read things that make me think otherwise.

  so i do find it confusing sometimes .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hooberus

  This is not correct. You have lumped a lot of stuff in #3 (Other unknowns). There are many possible falsifiable theories in that bunch. Here is just a short list of possible theories:

  1. Evolution (Neo Darwinism)
  2. Special creation by god
  3. Special creation by Invisible Pink Unicorns
  4. God assisted Evolution
  5. Evolution (Lamarkism)

  etc.

  In that list there are two falsifiable theories and three non-falsifiable ones. #5 has been falsified. #1 is falsifiable, but has not bee falsified yet. If #1 is ever falsified, we can only assume that there is another theory yet to be discovered that can be falsified. There is still no need to take the non-falsifiable theories seriously. If no such theory exists, the best answer is "we don't know yet". If the theory is not falsifiable then there is no way to rank it as more likely than any other. In the list above, numbers 2, 3, and 4 are just as likely. None of them help us learn anything more about biology or our universe because there is absolutely no way to prove whether they are true or false.

  rem, while I agree with you on many of the points you made above, I will take exception with you on the above point which I underlined.

  "If the theory is not falsifiable then there is no way to rank it as more likely than any other. In the list above, numbers 2, 3, and 4 are just as likely."

  The fact that while numbers 2,3, and 4 may each not be falsible does not necessarily mean that one is just as likely as the others. For example God is generally thought of as being all knowing, while pink unicorns are generally thought of as having the intelligence of say for example a horse, which is not enough knowledge to create DNA or other biological structures. Of course this would not necessarily prove that if creation is true that God did it, but it would make it more likely than "creation by pink unicorns" or "creation by french toast etc".
• 
  172

  Evolution or Creation??

  by dottie in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  well i know i may be opening a can of worms here.... but after what we were taught in the wts about creation...and now that you may know more about evolution... which do you think you'd choose to believe more??.

  myself...i am leaning towards evolution...but then i read things that make me think otherwise.

  so i do find it confusing sometimes .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hooberus

  I realise that option # 3 other unknowns is very general. Probably the closest thing that I think that could be put into it would be a hybrid theory in which for example Aliens created fish, and them these fish later evolved into amphibians, reptiles, etc.
• 
  172

  Evolution or Creation??

  by dottie in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  well i know i may be opening a can of worms here.... but after what we were taught in the wts about creation...and now that you may know more about evolution... which do you think you'd choose to believe more??.

  myself...i am leaning towards evolution...but then i read things that make me think otherwise.

  so i do find it confusing sometimes .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hooberus

  For the sake of simplicity it can be said that most of the subjects discussed on these evolution/creation threads can be placed under either the general category of Evolution or Creation.

  Things such as creation by God can be placed under the general creation thread while things such as evolution by mutation/selection can be placed under the general heading of Evolution.

  Since the creation mechanisms are proposed to have taken place in the unobserved past they are thus difficult to falsify. However, as we have said this does not necessarily make them false.
• 
  172

  Evolution or Creation??

  by dottie in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  well i know i may be opening a can of worms here.... but after what we were taught in the wts about creation...and now that you may know more about evolution... which do you think you'd choose to believe more??.

  myself...i am leaning towards evolution...but then i read things that make me think otherwise.

  so i do find it confusing sometimes .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hooberus

  It seems to me that most of the sub-units listed relate primarily to the mechanism behind each model. such as Evoution, by Neo-Darwinism or Lamarkism or Creation by God or pink unicorns. Despite the fact that each model can have different proposed mechanisms, the general concepts still remain as being Evolution or Creation.
• 
  172

  Evolution or Creation??

  by dottie in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  well i know i may be opening a can of worms here.... but after what we were taught in the wts about creation...and now that you may know more about evolution... which do you think you'd choose to believe more??.

  myself...i am leaning towards evolution...but then i read things that make me think otherwise.

  so i do find it confusing sometimes .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hooberus

  Thank you for your reasoned response rem.

  My three options for origins were intended to describe general concepts.

  Option # 1 Evolution

  Option # 2 Creation

  Option # 3 Other unknowns

  These three options can as you pointed out be broken down into sub-units such as

  Option # 1 Evolution

  A. Evolution (Neo Darwinism)

  B. Evolution (Lamarkism)

  C. God assisted Evolution

  Option # 2 Creation

  A. Special creation by god

  B. Special creation by Invisible Pink Unicorns

  Option # 3 Other unknowns
• 
  53

  *Dizzy* Christianity - Fraudulent and Evil Rotten - from beginning to end

  by Xander in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  was going to bump the other thread, but, this....just...... i mean:.

  http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/murderers.htm.

  some fun the early christians had:the pope's pears:.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hooberus

  Abaddon, why do you need to use put-downs in your posts?
• 
  53

  *Dizzy* Christianity - Fraudulent and Evil Rotten - from beginning to end

  by Xander in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  was going to bump the other thread, but, this....just...... i mean:.

  http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/murderers.htm.

  some fun the early christians had:the pope's pears:.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hooberus

  here is the other thread:

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/46549/3.ashx

  The thread topic is "Evolution or Creation"

  While the topic here is different, the specific point relating to the issue of whether or not you must first prove "the theory of god" before you can critique evolution are discussed there.
• 
  53

  *Dizzy* Christianity - Fraudulent and Evil Rotten - from beginning to end

  by Xander in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  was going to bump the other thread, but, this....just...... i mean:.

  http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/murderers.htm.

  some fun the early christians had:the pope's pears:.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hooberus

  starScream, the conversation that you are having with Abaddon, seems similar to the one that I had with Abaddon on another post, in which Abaddon is requiring you to first prove the existance of an invisible God (something which is not observable), before you can critique an aspect of evolutionary theory or naturalistic abiogenesis.

  Requiring someone to prove something which everyone agrees is not technically falsifable (such as the existance of an unobservable God) before you are allowed to critique a supposedly falsible theory (such as evolution or naturalistic abiogenesis) automatically makes your task impossible. Hense you are now in a debate to where the outcome has already been decided in Abaddon's favor by his own rules.

  Its like trying to play chess with someone who put his pieces on the board, but won't allow you to put your pieces on the board until you prove that the invisible is visible.
• 
  172

  Evolution or Creation??

  by dottie in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  well i know i may be opening a can of worms here.... but after what we were taught in the wts about creation...and now that you may know more about evolution... which do you think you'd choose to believe more??.

  myself...i am leaning towards evolution...but then i read things that make me think otherwise.

  so i do find it confusing sometimes .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hooberus

  rem said: There is no "they all look similar at the embryo stage" evolutionary argument. Perhaps you didn't notice the subtle difference between vertebrate and invertebrate. Vertebrates and Invertebrates are not closely related, so there is no prediction that their embryologies should look similar. It would be quite intriguing, though, if the embryology of a human and a chimpanzee were quite different since they are both vertibrates and closely related.

  Sorry, I made a mistake here. You are right in that your argument refered to vertebrates vs. invertebrates. My point about "they all look similar at the embryo stage" evolutionary argument refered to the creatures shown on the diagrams which are all vertebrates.