Anders Andersen

Joined

• started 54 topics
• posted 1,668 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by Anders Andersen

• 
  71

  Confusing Opinions with Facts

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  in a discussion about the best flavour of ice cream everybody's opinion is equally valid.. in a discussion about the shape of the earth or the origin of species everybody's opinion is equally irrelevant.

  only objective facts and evidence matter.. confusing these two categories is a common feature of conversations in this forum.

  people deserve respect, errors do not..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Anders Andersen

  In my story, try proving with evidence to the man eating a hot dog in a Chinese restaurant that he committed the crime

  Your analogy glosses over the real world situation.
  If the man was really eating a hotdog in the restaurant, there will be evidence of that.
  His DNA and fingerprints in the restaurant, people who saw him there, security camera's, hotdog in his stomach, etc. etc.
  In that case there's reaonable doubt that he is the perpetrator.
  
  Of course, if he just claims he was in the restaurant, but there's no evidence to prove it, and much compelling evidence to the contrary, why believe him? He may be lying or be (very) confused.

  
  

  Similary, if people just claim something based on their specific interpretation of a religious book, why believe them if they present no evidence to backup their claims, and there's much evidence to the contrary?

  Without evidence, these claims are useless. At best, they are just opinions. At worst, they are factual incorrect as shown by available evidence.
• 
  71

  Confusing Opinions with Facts

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  in a discussion about the best flavour of ice cream everybody's opinion is equally valid.. in a discussion about the shape of the earth or the origin of species everybody's opinion is equally irrelevant.

  only objective facts and evidence matter.. confusing these two categories is a common feature of conversations in this forum.

  people deserve respect, errors do not..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Anders Andersen

  @Fisherman,

  OK, I agree with you there. It is very well possible that some people who draw a conclusion on a specific subject may not have knowledge (yet) of all the facts, and draw the wrong conclusion.

  I'll add to that that sometimes people refuse to investigate or acknowledge facts they have knowledge about.

  In your example, the detectives might skip checking the video footage from the restaurant, and thus withhold themselves from knowing the fact the guy was eating a hotdog there. Or the suspect guy's wife found a bloody shirt in the laundry, but doesn't report it to the police because she just can't believe her husband is or might be a killer. She explains away the fact of the bloody shirt because she has an emotional block stopping her from adding that fact to her knowledge, or to the combined knowledge of all people including the detectives.

  Following my question for you is, which of the two groups below are likely to have access to and less emotional blocks regarding the theory of evolution:

  • The many thousands of scientists each diligently researching the facts in their relevant field of expertise. Many of these scientists believe in God, and have no problem accepting the facts they find regarding evolution. These scientists have published millions of scientific papers so others could scrutinize the conclusions in said papers, and expand on each others discoveries and knowledge.
  • The (mostly non-educated) people who have very strong beliefs (including 'evolution is not true'), whose entire belief system and life would collapse if they accepted evolution to be true. These people have never presented a peer reviewed paper that supports their world view.

  (Note that accepting evolution has nothing to do with rejecting any gods)

  As for the possible (non)existence of any gods: we'll presume innocence until proven guilty. Thus, until any gods' existence is proven at least somewhat beyond reasonable doubt, we must assume there are none.
• 
  147

  Challenge to Creationists

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  in response to the 37 threads in my evolution is a fact series - see bottom of op for links - perry posted a link to an article "44 reasons why evolution isn't true".. i offered him a challenge on the thread and by pm.

  predictably he is totally ignoring it, so i am offering the challenge to any evolution-denier who thinks they have evidence to support their position.. please present one specific piece of evidence for creationism.. my task will be to refute it with evidence within 24 hours.. then i will present one piece of evidence for evolution and your challenge will be the same.. all posts must be as succinct as reasonably possible.

  entirely in your own words, without copy-paste, videos or links.. please post your interest to take part and we will set it up before the first actual post in the exchange.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Anders Andersen

  Snowbird,

  The theory of evolution does not contain statements on the existence or non-existence of any gods. So ruling gods out or not is not relevant.

  On the other hand, for creation to be true at least one Creator must exist. So for creationists it's very much mandatory to prove the existence of such a being.
• 
  147

  Challenge to Creationists

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  in response to the 37 threads in my evolution is a fact series - see bottom of op for links - perry posted a link to an article "44 reasons why evolution isn't true".. i offered him a challenge on the thread and by pm.

  predictably he is totally ignoring it, so i am offering the challenge to any evolution-denier who thinks they have evidence to support their position.. please present one specific piece of evidence for creationism.. my task will be to refute it with evidence within 24 hours.. then i will present one piece of evidence for evolution and your challenge will be the same.. all posts must be as succinct as reasonably possible.

  entirely in your own words, without copy-paste, videos or links.. please post your interest to take part and we will set it up before the first actual post in the exchange.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Anders Andersen

  The context of the OP makes it clear that cofty invites those who deny evolution to prove their point.

  Of course those who accept evolution but think it was guided by a divine being can also be called 'creationists' , but the point of the challenge is not to (dis)prove the existence of gods, but to show that evolution-deniers really don't have any evidence to back their claims.
• 
  71

  Confusing Opinions with Facts

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  in a discussion about the best flavour of ice cream everybody's opinion is equally valid.. in a discussion about the shape of the earth or the origin of species everybody's opinion is equally irrelevant.

  only objective facts and evidence matter.. confusing these two categories is a common feature of conversations in this forum.

  people deserve respect, errors do not..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Anders Andersen

  @Vidqun,
  Care to explain why/how you see that cognitive dissonance at work in people accepting evolution?
  Is it also at work in religious people who accept evolution?
• 
  71

  Confusing Opinions with Facts

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  in a discussion about the best flavour of ice cream everybody's opinion is equally valid.. in a discussion about the shape of the earth or the origin of species everybody's opinion is equally irrelevant.

  only objective facts and evidence matter.. confusing these two categories is a common feature of conversations in this forum.

  people deserve respect, errors do not..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Anders Andersen

  Where there is smoke, there is fire.

  Sounds reasonable if you already know fire exists and creates smoke.

  Without having first observed multiple fires creating smoke, this saying would never have been much popular.

  
  

  As they say in some parts of the world:

  Where there is smoke, there's a dragon. We know because our parents told us, and it says so in this old book...

  
  
  
• 
  114

  Evidence for a Young Earth

  by Perry in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  for additional information:.

  for additional information:.

  for additional information:.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Anders Andersen

  @Perry,

  Why not also quote from that very same article this part:

  The crisis should not shake confidence in the scientific method. The ability to prove something false continues to be a hallmark of science. But scientists need to improve the way they do their research and how they disseminate evidence.

  The article also proposes a solution: when new findings are presented, mutiple peer reviewed studies are needed to confirm the finding.

  So, where are all the peer reviewed studies that confirm a young earth?

  Or does your criticism and scrutiny only apply to ideas and conclusions that contradict your beliefs, while your own ideas can be confirmed by whatever?
• 
  71

  Confusing Opinions with Facts

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  in a discussion about the best flavour of ice cream everybody's opinion is equally valid.. in a discussion about the shape of the earth or the origin of species everybody's opinion is equally irrelevant.

  only objective facts and evidence matter.. confusing these two categories is a common feature of conversations in this forum.

  people deserve respect, errors do not..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Anders Andersen

  or if a person witnesses something that happened and is asked to testify in Court about what that person knows is a true or fact-which is not an opinion, the existence of Jehovah for instance.

  1. It's well established that eyewitnesses in court rooms are highly unreliable. Without evidence to back up their claims, I would hesitate to just accept the testimony of an eyewitness, especially in a confusing case with high stakes. (There is no verifiable or measurable evidence Jehovah or any other gods exist)
  2. If multiple independent eyewitnesses can testify and corroborate the same observed facts, I would be more inclined to accept that testimony.
  3. If multiple witnesses exist, who all contradict each other, I would most likely not accept any of what they say (there are many contradicting testimonies regarding the number, names and natures of gods).
  4. If multiple witnesses exist, with the same story, but they had motive and opportunity to get their stories to match, I would likely not acrept their testimony if not backed up by evidence (within a single religion or group of religions, people have had centuries to compare notes. There motive is not wanting to be wrong).

  
  

  Jehovah does not exist. Prove me wrong in a way that the courts would accept.
  
  
• 
  71

  Confusing Opinions with Facts

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  in a discussion about the best flavour of ice cream everybody's opinion is equally valid.. in a discussion about the shape of the earth or the origin of species everybody's opinion is equally irrelevant.

  only objective facts and evidence matter.. confusing these two categories is a common feature of conversations in this forum.

  people deserve respect, errors do not..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Anders Andersen

  @fisherman,

  It must be said: your post above is reasonable and makes some sense, regardless of you being tired :-)

  The process of evolution as an explanation for the observed facts (the facts that cofty presents in his series of posts) might be subject to change and revision.

  Highly theoretically speaking it might even be that some day so many other facts come to light that a completely new theory to explain all observed facts is accepted. That is how the scientific process works.

  However, there are so ridiculous many observed facts that all support the theory of evolution that it is highly unlikely (as in virtually impossible) that it is wrong. Hence that scientists, who are cautious doubters by nature and profession, dare to label the theory a fact.

  Are there any observed facts that contradict the theory of evolution? If they haven't been found by now, what is the chance they will be found in future?

  On the other hand, we have the folks that say 'God did it'.

  Those that claim 6 literal creation days have to explain away a massive amount of contradicting evidence by uttering a confused non-explanation: 'it's a miracle, God did it anyway'.

  Those that claim some sort of intelligent design or guided evolution have (while their ideas cannot be tested and thus can't be disproved) zero, nada, nil evidence to support their claims either.

  So while I get the distinction you make between fact and theory, there is no practical application for that difference when speaking about evolution. That theory is so well established that we might as well call it fact.

  And I always wonder why people who can't accept evolution because they think the evidence doesn't point there, accept God as a fact while there is no evidence pointing there at all..?
• 
  29

  Help - I'm going to be conducting the watchtower study

  by Saltheart Foamfollower in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  it looks like i'm going to have to take the watchtower study for a while so i thought i'd seek help.. i wont be outing myself or stating anything too controversial, but so far i have come up with the following tactics : 1) ask questions which will get people thinking even if it is about something insignificant - developing a questioning mind is the key to discovering ttat as far as i am concerned.

  2) highlight any extreme points so that some might realise they are extreme.

  3) highlight any good points - helping others in need for example - just because it is the right thing to do.. if anyone has any general comments which could help, please post them here.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Anders Andersen

  Good luck!

  Make sure that an accomplice is recording video if you ever go out with a bang ;-)