Creation and Evolution Compatible...Questions

[Deeje]

All together now...

My god is better than your god...............................My god's better than yours.

My god's better and he chases atheists.................My god's better than yours.​

And that is your mature response?

I'm surrounded by atheists who can post infantile stuff but nothing to back up their theory.

....they really must be out of ammo if this is the best they can do....?

 

[ecco]

All together now...
My god is better than your god...............................My god's better than yours.

My god's better and he chases atheists.................My god's better than yours.

And that is your mature response?

I'm surrounded by atheists who can post infantile stuff but nothing to back up their theory.

I make serious posts to serious adults.

I make infantile posts to... well, you figure it out.

 

[Deeje]

I make serious posts to serious adults.

I make infantile posts to... well, you figure it out.

More personal attacks but still no evidence...its getting more obvious with each post.

You haven't got anything that is substantiated, have you? Not a single thing you can post that does not rely on "might have's" and "could have's". That is a belief system.....you just can't admit it can you?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

It is in the genetic code that you think nobody wrote.

It is in the complexity of integrated design which you think is an endless series of fortunate flukes.

Someone has swallowed a fairy tale with regard to this subject and I don't think its believers in ID....



I have as much as you do...which I have maintained all along.

Where is the substantiated evidence that macro-evolution is even possible, let alone probable?

If someone mentions "speciation" again I will just scream!!

I am still waiting.......

You know Deeje, I'm afraid the opening of the eyes, for the vast majority, will have to occur at the Resurrection. Without the 'influence', if you know what I mean.

If someone mentions "speciation" again I will just scream!!

Lol! Oh my goodness, I'm so looking forward to meeting you, one day!!

("Speciation" -- are you screaming?)

 

[Olinda]

Is it a taunt or a challenge?
Funny how the science buffs here can't provide anything but ridicule. It's a sure sign that they have nothing to show for all the derision. No ammo huh? This is all you have?

Wars need ammo, not debates. This is getting a bit uncomfortable to read.

@Deeje perhaps it would help to differentiate between people of scientific training expressing their views and debating (eg Dawkins), and scientists practicing science. Real people, of diverse backgrounds and religious beliefs, who together follow a methodology which has led to us having a lot of comfort and longevity.

People who in no way attack religious beliefs, nor assert that their discoveries invalidate the beliefs of others. These people should not be derided as close-minded and prideful unless you can provide good reason to do so.

If you wish to single out a particular theory and assert that is not 'true science' rolleyes: ). you need to show how the scientific method is not followed in regards to that theory.

 

[Deeje]

Lol! Oh my goodness, I'm so looking forward to meeting you, one day!!

("Speciation" -- are you screaming?)

 

[Deeje]

Wars need ammo, not debates. This is getting a bit uncomfortable to read.

Then do yourself a favor and don't read it.

perhaps it would help to differentiate between people of scientific training expressing their views and debating (eg Dawkins), and scientists practicing science. Real people, of diverse backgrounds and religious beliefs, who together follow a methodology which has led to us having a lot of comfort and longevity.

People who in no way attack religious beliefs, nor assert that their discoveries invalidate the beliefs of others. These people should not be derided as close-minded and prideful unless you can provide good reason to do so.

I just love the way you create your strawmen and then ever so politely tear them down.... who is attacking those scientists? I am questioning their methods...passed on to those who continue to believe what they are never taught to question.

Belief in "the scientific method" for everything is what the problem is. Question the method and then question the result. Read the literature and see how much guesswork is involved in their conclusions....how very scientific!

If you wish to single out a particular theory and assert that is not 'true science' rolleyes: ). you need to show how the scientific method is not followed in regards to that theory.

Really? Who said that the "scientific method" (I know people like the sound of that term) was accurate in everything it tests?
Who put science on that really high pedestal? Other scientists....

 

[Olinda]

Then do yourself a favor and don't read it.

I have my reasons for reading, as you have yours for defending Watchtower tenets.

I just love the way you create your strawmen and then ever so politely tear them down.... who is attacking those scientists? I am questioning their methods...passed on to those who continue to believe what they are never taught to question.

It's nice that you appreciate my politeness. However, you did attack 'those' scientists, and I'll provide quotes if you wish.

Belief in "the scientific method" for everything is what the problem is. Question the method and then question the result. Read the literature and see how much guesswork is involved in their conclusions....how very scientific!

No, no-one believes in a methodology. It's just a way of verifying and sharing information. It has proven to be very effective.
I have a science degree and have read plenty of papers. You have been told about the reasons for the writing style and that certainty and proof are not part of science so many times that is is pointless to repeat.

Really? Who said that the "scientific method" (I know people like the sound of that term) was accurate in everything it tests?

No-one. A methodology doesn't test anything. People do, and verify each other's results and conclusions, or discuss the differences (usually politely). The outcome is support for a theory, or a new or modified theory.

{QUOTE]
Who put science on that really high pedestal? Other scientists.... [/QUOTE]

And in the same post you ask "who is attacking those scientists?"

 

[Deeje]

No, no-one believes in a methodology. It's just a way of verifying and sharing information. It has proven to be very effective.

Yes I can see that many scientists seem to be very affected by the results of tests that for macro-evolution don't really amount to a hill of beans.
There are lots of people attacking me, but not addressing the topic.

Have you got some evidence to share or are you just another evolutionist who likes to stir the pot? There are enough of them already.

I have a science degree and have read plenty of papers. You have been told about the reasons for the writing style and that certainty and proof are not part of science so many times that is is pointless to repeat.

Yes, I have been told about the writing style all right, but it hasn't stopped this theory being taught as proven fact in schools and universities, has it? When do we see science teachers ever mention that they could be wrong about how life on this planet evolved? The basic tenet never changes, just the minor details. I haven't see any such admissions on the part of scientists, and that has been my beef all along. Teach it as a theory if you must......just don't teach kids that it is unquestionable fact and then use derision to force them into silence like Dawkins does.....or mark them "wrong" on exam papers if they answer "incorrectly" according to what science "thinks" as opposed to what it "knows".

A methodology doesn't test anything. People do, and verify each other's results and conclusions, or discuss the differences (usually politely). The outcome is support for a theory, or a new or modified theory.

People use the methodology that they were taught to use...and these people "verify each other's results"......but only within the framework of what they already believe. "The outcome is support for a theory, or a new or modified theory" but no one questions the validity of the basic premise which is not provable. It's like building an elaborate mansion on matchsticks IMO.

 

[ArtieE]

What if the Creator is evaluating your skepticism and waiting for a spark of spirituality? Will he ever see one or will you fall into the category of the "physical man" who cannot discern "spiritual" things?

What if Thor is just waiting for meteorologists to have a spark of spirituality? What if Poseidon is just waiting for seismologists to have a spark of spirituality? What if the extraterrestrials are waiting for biologists to... what?

 

[Deeje]

What if Thor is just waiting for meteorologists to have a spark of spirituality? What if Poseidon is just waiting for seismologists to have a spark of spirituality? What if the extraterrestrials are waiting for biologists to... what?

I guess we'll have to wait and see. Won't it be fun?

 

[ArtieE]

More personal attacks but still no evidence...its getting more obvious with each post.

You haven't got anything that is substantiated, have you? Not a single thing you can post that does not rely on "might have's" and "could have's". That is a belief system.....you just can't admit it can you?

Biologists "assume" that life on earth is a result of natural causes because they have no convincing evidence for other causes. That is no more a belief system than metereologists have a belief system when they don't consider Thor as a cause for thunder or seismologists don't consider Poseidon as the cause of earthquakes.

 

[ArtieE]

I guess we'll have to wait and see. Won't it be fun?

I already have fun when I read about all those JW failed predictions.

 

[ArtieE]

Yes, I have been told about the writing style all right, but it hasn't stopped this theory being taught as proven fact in schools and universities, has it? When do we see science teachers ever mention that they could be wrong about how life on this planet evolved?

If I was taking a biology class and the teacher seriously started talking about how life on earth was created by some god or some extraterrestrials I would have called for medical help.

 

[Deeje]

Biologists "assume" that life on earth is a result of natural causes because they have no convincing evidence for other causes.

I have plenty of evidence for a very "natural" cause of things that show evidence of being purposefully designed. Logic tells me that things that demonstrate purpose have been planned. Evolution plans nothing....it is supposedly undirected.

That is no more a belief system than metereologists have a belief system when they don't consider Thor as a cause for thunder or seismologists don't consider Poseidon as the cause of earthquakes.

Oh please. False gods don't survive real science......I think we all know that thunder doesn't come from Thor, nor does Poseidon cause tsunamis. Last time I looked, neither of these gods was claimed to be a Creator.

Since science cannot substantiate its claim for a "natural" cause of life, true science cannot dismiss an Intelligent Designer as that first cause.

I don't see science being any more advanced on the question of abiogenesis in the last 50 years....do you?

 

[Deeje]

I already have fun when I read about all those JW failed predictions.

One day you may just be surprised. The prophesy has not failed....we just got the timing wrong.

 

[ArtieE]

Since science cannot substantiate its claim for a "natural" cause of life, true science cannot dismiss an Intelligent Designer as that first cause.

The default is to "assume" a natural cause of life until you have provided enough evidence for the existence of your Intelligent Designer to make him a possible candidate. Just like the default is to "assume" a natural cause of life until the Raëlians have provided enough evidence for the existence of their extra terrestrials to make them a possible candidate. Science doesn't dismiss anything, you just haven't given science enough reason to accept your theories as valid.

 

[ArtieE]

One day you may just be surprised. The prophesy has not failed....we just got the timing wrong.

If you can get your timing wrong that many times there's a good bet that timing is not all you have gotten wrong...

 

[ecco]

More personal attacks but still no evidence...its getting more obvious with each post.

You haven't got anything that is substantiated, have you?

Do you want to discuss things that are or are not "substantiated" by evidence? OK.

Some substantiated facts:

• There have been and are thousands of religious sects.
• People from every one of these sects believes their version of their god is correct and everyone else's is wrong.
• JW is an undistinguished sect:

It is not as old as most
It is not newer than some
It is not as widespread as others
​

Yet, you completely convinced that JW is the correct religion and that your understanding of god is correct. You believe this despite all the evidence to the contrary. If you cannot understand that, then it is not surprising that you cannot understand ToE.

You blatantly ignore all evidence, on any subject, that does not fit your worldview.

 

[ecco]

You know Deeje, I'm afraid the opening of the eyes, for the vast majority, will have to occur at the Resurrection.

Which Resurrection? The one that has been predicted to occur "soon" by hundreds of religious leaders across the ages, including at least three such predictions by JW leaders.