Genesis & Science - Friend or Foe?

[nPeace]

What makes you think that the concept of life coming from a common ancestor is not testable?

What made you ask that... did you read it in my post?
I made some statements, and asked a question, and instead of addressing that, you ask a question that imo, is irrelevant to anything I said.

I noticed that every single post I made, I had a number of people breathing down my neck - so many comments, I could not find the time to respond to all of them. Now I focus on the proposition that all life came from one common source, and one single person responds, and how does he respond, with a question that, it appears to me, has nothing to do with what I am saying.

The guy, who had so much to say, jumping on every post I made, now stands on the side, and responds - not to my post, but an irrelevant question, by trying to answer for me. Obviously he would say something that is in his mind - not in mine. I'll be nice, and not comment on what I really think about the answer he proposed.

So it looks like it's just you and I left @Subduction Zone.
Whether we go forward from here, seems to be up to you. So just to remind you of where I am...
It is claimed that it is okay or safe, to extrapolate on the evidence to conclude that the idea is true, but this does not follow the method of good science.

The definition of extrapolate:
extend the application of (a method or conclusion, especially one based on statistics) to an unknown situation by assuming that existing trends will continue or similar methods will be applicable.

This is not keeping with the scientific method.
It's not experimental, observable, nor repeatable.
One can assume anything to support an idea. That's not good science. Is it?

So let me put it a different way.
We often hear, and read expressions like, "It just takes time".
Accumulating change
Microevolutionary change might seem too unimportant to account for such amazing evolutionary transitions as the origin of dinosaurs or the radiation of land plants — however, it is not. Microevolution happens on a small time scale — from one generation to the next. When such small changes build up over the course of millions of years, they translate into evolution on a grand scale — in other words, macroevolution!

The four basic evolutionary mechanisms — mutation, migration, genetic drift, and natural selection — can produce major evolutionary change if given enough time. And life on Earth has been accumulating small changes for 3.8 billion years — more than enough time for these simple evolutionary processes to produce its grand history.
[GALLERY=media, 8725]Macroequation by nPeace posted Nov 16, 2018 at 6:22 PM[/GALLERY]

The above is extrapolating.
To extrapolate on the observed evidence (adaptation, speciation), to assume that this leads to an unknown situation, or idea, is not keeping with good science.
Do you agree with that?

We can discuss the other claims of evidence, if you like... after you let me know if you agree or disagree.

if you are against higher education you are against education.

And please, do not use dishonest arguments. You are usually better than that.

I looked at this statement...
if you are against higher education you are against education.
...and a few things come to mind.
1. The article on the jw.org website explains, why higher education is not considered the recommended choice, and it explained that education is very important. So apparently, it seems you don't care what the article said - you ignore it, and believe... what you want to - which is not truth.
2. This statement, to put it mildly, makes no sense. It's the same thing as saying, "You discourage unwholesome association and entertainment, therefore you hate association and entertainment". That is ridiculous, isn't it?

 

[nPeace]

Why then did you quote so many verses decrying it, calling it foolishness as the "wisdom of man"? Have you changed your mind on the matter and are willing to listen to what comes out of modern scholarship now? Or is it only a premodern JW-approved curriculum which you consider true education?

What did I decry?

 

[nPeace]

I'm content that the theory of evolution is correct.

You are one of dozens of creationists who cannot tell the gallery why anyone should abandon a system of ideas that unifies mountains of data from a multitude of sources, accurately makes predictions about what can and cannot be found in nature, provides a rational mechanism for evolution consistent with the known actions of nature, accounts for both the commonality of all life as well as biodiversity, and has had practical applications that have improved the human condition in areas like medicine and agriculture - and replace it with a sterile idea that can do none of that, one that can't be used for anything of value.

Answer that, and maybe I'll take an interest in your argument and your resources. Thank you for your interest and offer, but I'm not in the habit of getting my science from creationists or creationist resources. I have no incentive to see look at material on science not from a legitimate science education resource like TalkOrigins.com



The evidence is to the contrary, assuming that by education you mean what others mean. We're talking about useful education, including formal education.

And specifically, in this context, we're talking about the kind of education that makes a person competitive in modern society. Getting an education from your church will not do that.



Your concept of the place of observation is probably skewed. What needs to be observable is the evidence used to come to a conclusion. Other need to be able to reproduce the findings and make the same observations made during the original study.

It is not necessary, nor possible, to witness the past. We witness evidence in the present that points to the past. If I come upon the body of a dead person on the street, the evidence before me and what I know about life is enough to conclude that this person died even though perhaps nobody witnessed it. Probably was also born once, and took a first step, and learned to speak, even though nobody is able to give eye-witness testimony of those facts.

That's how evidence and reason applied to it work to have the present report on the past.

We will not witness the kind of evolution that occurs over millions of years. Nor need we to know from the evidence observable today what happened in the past.

The evidence for evolution observable to Darwin in his day is observable still visible today, and more.



Yes, it's a hypothesis that was so robustly supported by evidence that the theory of evolution rose to the status of a scientific theory.



Extrapolation is very much in keeping with the scientific method. Extrapolation is not an action to be observed. It is a mathematical process. It's how New Horizons got to Pluto - extrapolating the positions and motions of the probe, Earth, and Pluto from T = 0 to a projected point of rendezvous years later.

Speaking of which, did you know that Pluto has never been observed to complete an orbit around the sun. Do you believe that it has? If so, based on what?

That's correct - that which has been and can be and has been observed - Pluto completing about a third of an orbit since it was discovered. That's extrapolation, too. Let's extrapolate further. Times millions of laps around the sun.



As I told @Patriottechsan , what we have is a robust theory that has already proved its value. Let me ask you the question I asked him - why throw out what works for that which can be used for nothing? Assumptions and speculations are all that religion brings, unless you want to add promises that can't be verified and don't need to be kept. The science has delivered results.



There are different kinds of learning, some useful, some not. Not all of it is taught formally in a classroom.

Successfully dissuading children from getting a good formal education because you fear that they will fall from the faith if they see a college campus seems like yoking them with a huge burden based on beliefs that might not be correct.

So you are saying that making assumptions without being able to experiment, observe, and repeat an experiment to verify the results, or conclusion, is part of the scientific method? Is that what you are saying?
I just want to be sure I am understanding you clearly.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

What made you ask that... did you read it in my post?
I made some statements, and asked a question, and instead of addressing that, you ask a question that imo, is irrelevant to anything I said.

I noticed that every single post I made, I had a number of people breathing down my neck - so many comments, I could not find the time to respond to all of them. Now I focus on the proposition that all life came from one common source, and one single person responds, and how does he respond, with a question that, it appears to me, has nothing to do with what I am saying.

The guy, who had so much to say, jumping on every post I made, now stands on the side, and responds - not to my post, but an irrelevant question, by trying to answer for me. Obviously he would say something that is in his mind - not in mine. I'll be nice, and not comment on what I really think about the answer he proposed.

So it looks like it's just you and I left @Subduction Zone.
Whether we go forward from here, seems to be up to you. So just to remind you of where I am...
It is claimed that it is okay or safe, to extrapolate on the evidence to conclude that the idea is true, but this does not follow the method of good science.

The definition of extrapolate:
extend the application of (a method or conclusion, especially one based on statistics) to an unknown situation by assuming that existing trends will continue or similar methods will be applicable.

This is not keeping with the scientific method.
It's not experimental, observable, nor repeatable.
One can assume anything to support an idea. That's not good science. Is it?

So let me put it a different way.
We often hear, and read expressions like, "It just takes time".
Accumulating change
Microevolutionary change might seem too unimportant to account for such amazing evolutionary transitions as the origin of dinosaurs or the radiation of land plants — however, it is not. Microevolution happens on a small time scale — from one generation to the next. When such small changes build up over the course of millions of years, they translate into evolution on a grand scale — in other words, macroevolution!

The four basic evolutionary mechanisms — mutation, migration, genetic drift, and natural selection — can produce major evolutionary change if given enough time. And life on Earth has been accumulating small changes for 3.8 billion years — more than enough time for these simple evolutionary processes to produce its grand history.
[GALLERY=media, 8725]Macroequation by nPeace posted Nov 16, 2018 at 6:22 PM[/GALLERY]

The above is extrapolating.
To extrapolate on the observed evidence (adaptation, speciation), to assume that this leads to an unknown situation, or idea, is not keeping with good science.
Do you agree with that?

We can discuss the other claims of evidence, if you like... after you let me know if you agree or disagree.


I looked at this statement...
if you are against higher education you are against education.
...and a few things come to mind.
1. The article on the jw.org website explains, why higher education is not considered the recommended choice, and it explained that education is very important. So apparently, it seems you don't care what the article said - you ignore it, and believe... what you want to - which is not truth.
2. This statement, to put it mildly, makes no sense. It's the same thing as saying, "You discourage unwholesome association and entertainment, therefore you hate association and entertainment". That is ridiculous, isn't it?

I noticed several things too. One is that you have yet to apologize to me for calling me a liar, when you just posted a reference to the material I mentioned reading. I would apologize to you if it were me that had made such outrageous accusations, but I am that kind of person.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

So you are saying that making assumptions without being able to experiment, observe, and repeat an experiment to verify the results, or conclusion, is part of the scientific method? Is that what you are saying?
I just want to be sure I am understanding you clearly.

Where did you get that in what he wrote? You do not understand him.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

What did I decry?

Where to begin? How much time do you have?

 

[Subduction Zone]

What made you ask that... did you read it in my post?
I made some statements, and asked a question, and instead of addressing that, you ask a question that imo, is irrelevant to anything I said.

I noticed that every single post I made, I had a number of people breathing down my neck - so many comments, I could not find the time to respond to all of them. Now I focus on the proposition that all life came from one common source, and one single person responds, and how does he respond, with a question that, it appears to me, has nothing to do with what I am saying.

The guy, who had so much to say, jumping on every post I made, now stands on the side, and responds - not to my post, but an irrelevant question, by trying to answer for me. Obviously he would say something that is in his mind - not in mine. I'll be nice, and not comment on what I really think about the answer he proposed.

So it looks like it's just you and I left @Subduction Zone.
Whether we go forward from here, seems to be up to you. So just to remind you of where I am...
It is claimed that it is okay or safe, to extrapolate on the evidence to conclude that the idea is true, but this does not follow the method of good science.

The definition of extrapolate:
extend the application of (a method or conclusion, especially one based on statistics) to an unknown situation by assuming that existing trends will continue or similar methods will be applicable.

This is not keeping with the scientific method.
It's not experimental, observable, nor repeatable.
One can assume anything to support an idea. That's not good science. Is it?

So let me put it a different way.
We often hear, and read expressions like, "It just takes time".
Accumulating change
Microevolutionary change might seem too unimportant to account for such amazing evolutionary transitions as the origin of dinosaurs or the radiation of land plants — however, it is not. Microevolution happens on a small time scale — from one generation to the next. When such small changes build up over the course of millions of years, they translate into evolution on a grand scale — in other words, macroevolution!

The four basic evolutionary mechanisms — mutation, migration, genetic drift, and natural selection — can produce major evolutionary change if given enough time. And life on Earth has been accumulating small changes for 3.8 billion years — more than enough time for these simple evolutionary processes to produce its grand history.
[GALLERY=media, 8725]Macroequation by nPeace posted Nov 16, 2018 at 6:22 PM[/GALLERY]

The above is extrapolating.
To extrapolate on the observed evidence (adaptation, speciation), to assume that this leads to an unknown situation, or idea, is not keeping with good science.
Do you agree with that?

We can discuss the other claims of evidence, if you like... after you let me know if you agree or disagree.


I looked at this statement...
if you are against higher education you are against education.
...and a few things come to mind.
1. The article on the jw.org website explains, why higher education is not considered the recommended choice, and it explained that education is very important. So apparently, it seems you don't care what the article said - you ignore it, and believe... what you want to - which is not truth.
2. This statement, to put it mildly, makes no sense. It's the same thing as saying, "You discourage unwholesome association and entertainment, therefore you hate association and entertainment". That is ridiculous, isn't it?

Your claim about extrapolation was already refuted by another. And my question cut to the heart of your objections. That you dodged it tells us that you know that you are wrong.

And all the JW 's website had were excuses for their bad behavior. You should learn how apologetics are almost always lying for Jesus.

Sadly I doubt if you will ever allow yourself to learn that. Apologetics are a security blanket for the deceived that allows them to remain deceived.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

What made you ask that... did you read it in my post?
I made some statements, and asked a question, and instead of addressing that, you ask a question that imo, is irrelevant to anything I said.

I noticed that every single post I made, I had a number of people breathing down my neck - so many comments, I could not find the time to respond to all of them. Now I focus on the proposition that all life came from one common source, and one single person responds, and how does he respond, with a question that, it appears to me, has nothing to do with what I am saying.

The guy, who had so much to say, jumping on every post I made, now stands on the side, and responds - not to my post, but an irrelevant question, by trying to answer for me. Obviously he would say something that is in his mind - not in mine. I'll be nice, and not comment on what I really think about the answer he proposed.

So it looks like it's just you and I left @Subduction Zone.
Whether we go forward from here, seems to be up to you. So just to remind you of where I am...
It is claimed that it is okay or safe, to extrapolate on the evidence to conclude that the idea is true, but this does not follow the method of good science.

The definition of extrapolate:
extend the application of (a method or conclusion, especially one based on statistics) to an unknown situation by assuming that existing trends will continue or similar methods will be applicable.

This is not keeping with the scientific method.
It's not experimental, observable, nor repeatable.
One can assume anything to support an idea. That's not good science. Is it?

So let me put it a different way.
We often hear, and read expressions like, "It just takes time".
Accumulating change
Microevolutionary change might seem too unimportant to account for such amazing evolutionary transitions as the origin of dinosaurs or the radiation of land plants — however, it is not. Microevolution happens on a small time scale — from one generation to the next. When such small changes build up over the course of millions of years, they translate into evolution on a grand scale — in other words, macroevolution!

The four basic evolutionary mechanisms — mutation, migration, genetic drift, and natural selection — can produce major evolutionary change if given enough time. And life on Earth has been accumulating small changes for 3.8 billion years — more than enough time for these simple evolutionary processes to produce its grand history.
[GALLERY=media, 8725]Macroequation by nPeace posted Nov 16, 2018 at 6:22 PM[/GALLERY]

The above is extrapolating.
To extrapolate on the observed evidence (adaptation, speciation), to assume that this leads to an unknown situation, or idea, is not keeping with good science.
Do you agree with that?

We can discuss the other claims of evidence, if you like... after you let me know if you agree or disagree.


I looked at this statement...
if you are against higher education you are against education.
...and a few things come to mind.
1. The article on the jw.org website explains, why higher education is not considered the recommended choice, and it explained that education is very important. So apparently, it seems you don't care what the article said - you ignore it, and believe... what you want to - which is not truth.
2. This statement, to put it mildly, makes no sense. It's the same thing as saying, "You discourage unwholesome association and entertainment, therefore you hate association and entertainment". That is ridiculous, isn't it?

You claim that the theory of common ancestry is not science. Even a creationist should be sharp enough to figure out that is a claim it is not testable. One of the criteria of scientific theory is falsifiability. If it is not science, there can be no test and no falsification. Your post looks like your standard, wordy, directionless diversion, likely due to the fact that you really have no notion about what science is or does.

 

[Windwalker]

What did I decry?

You went after higher education, mailinging it by misapplying the Bible to it as the "wisdom of man", meaning foolishness. Do you believe higher education is foolish? Please be honest in your answer.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Your claim about extrapolation was already refuted by another. And my question cut to the heart of your objections. That you dodged it tells us that you know that you are wrong.

And all the JW 's website had were excuses for their bad behavior. You should learn how apologetics are almost always lying for Jesus.

Sadly I doubt if you will ever allow yourself to learn that. Apologetics are a security blanket for the deceived that allows them to remain deceived.

I have learned that most of the meandering, directionless wordiness of his posts is a smokescreen to dodge directly answering something for which he has no meaningful answer. When cornered by questions that he is lost on, he seems to respond with incoherent babbling and Gish gallop on steroids.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

What made you ask that... did you read it in my post?
I made some statements, and asked a question, and instead of addressing that, you ask a question that imo, is irrelevant to anything I said.

I noticed that every single post I made, I had a number of people breathing down my neck - so many comments, I could not find the time to respond to all of them. Now I focus on the proposition that all life came from one common source, and one single person responds, and how does he respond, with a question that, it appears to me, has nothing to do with what I am saying.

The guy, who had so much to say, jumping on every post I made, now stands on the side, and responds - not to my post, but an irrelevant question, by trying to answer for me. Obviously he would say something that is in his mind - not in mine. I'll be nice, and not comment on what I really think about the answer he proposed.

So it looks like it's just you and I left @Subduction Zone.
Whether we go forward from here, seems to be up to you. So just to remind you of where I am...
It is claimed that it is okay or safe, to extrapolate on the evidence to conclude that the idea is true, but this does not follow the method of good science.

The definition of extrapolate:
extend the application of (a method or conclusion, especially one based on statistics) to an unknown situation by assuming that existing trends will continue or similar methods will be applicable.

This is not keeping with the scientific method.
It's not experimental, observable, nor repeatable.
One can assume anything to support an idea. That's not good science. Is it?

So let me put it a different way.
We often hear, and read expressions like, "It just takes time".
Accumulating change
Microevolutionary change might seem too unimportant to account for such amazing evolutionary transitions as the origin of dinosaurs or the radiation of land plants — however, it is not. Microevolution happens on a small time scale — from one generation to the next. When such small changes build up over the course of millions of years, they translate into evolution on a grand scale — in other words, macroevolution!

The four basic evolutionary mechanisms — mutation, migration, genetic drift, and natural selection — can produce major evolutionary change if given enough time. And life on Earth has been accumulating small changes for 3.8 billion years — more than enough time for these simple evolutionary processes to produce its grand history.
[GALLERY=media, 8725]Macroequation by nPeace posted Nov 16, 2018 at 6:22 PM[/GALLERY]

The above is extrapolating.
To extrapolate on the observed evidence (adaptation, speciation), to assume that this leads to an unknown situation, or idea, is not keeping with good science.
Do you agree with that?

We can discuss the other claims of evidence, if you like... after you let me know if you agree or disagree.


I looked at this statement...
if you are against higher education you are against education.
...and a few things come to mind.
1. The article on the jw.org website explains, why higher education is not considered the recommended choice, and it explained that education is very important. So apparently, it seems you don't care what the article said - you ignore it, and believe... what you want to - which is not truth.
2. This statement, to put it mildly, makes no sense. It's the same thing as saying, "You discourage unwholesome association and entertainment, therefore you hate association and entertainment". That is ridiculous, isn't it?

You have linked this thread before and it did not work then and does not appear to work now.

Mutation is not really a mechanism of evolution. It is a mechanism of variation on which the mechanisms of evolution can act.

Maybe you will answer this question. Maybe not. But here goes.

What do you think the evolution of higher taxa means from a step-wise, mechanistic perspective? Do you envision different taxonomic families forming directly out of an existing family or do you see it as the result of continual branching until so many changes accumulate that the new group is clearly a different family from the ancestral? In other words, what is your understanding of the scientific view of phyllogenesis?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have learned that most of the meandering, directionless wordiness of his posts is a smokescreen to dodge directly answering something for which he has no meaningful answer. When cornered by questions that he is lost on, he seems to respond with incoherent babbling and Gish gallop on steroids.

and let's not forget endless strawman arguments.

 

[nPeace]

I noticed several things too. One is that you have yet to apologize to me for calling me a liar, when you just posted a reference to the material I mentioned reading. I would apologize to you if it were me that had made such outrageous accusations, but I am that kind of person.

You lied. Did you not? The article showed you lied. Are you not aware of what you said?
Are these not your words, "...your cult does not think much of education"?
I found them under your user name, so I don't think they belong to another user, do they?
Is that not a lie? It certainly isn't the truth, is it. It totally contradicts the truth.

 

[nPeace]

Where did you get that in what he wrote? You do not understand him.

I believe he will explain himself. He usually does.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Like the Taliban.. Education is a threat.. Same for Boko Haram.

That is the way I see it. If you have educated masses, they are going to start questioning your wild claims. They are going to become familiar with what the demonized group of the day really thinks and what they really have done and challenge the reasons for demonizing them.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You lied. Did you not? The article showed you lied. Are you not aware of what you said?
Are these not your words, "...your cult does not think much of education"?
I found them under your user name, so I don't think they belong to another user, do they?
Is that not a lie? It certainly isn't the truth, is it. It totally contradicts the truth.

How did he lie? I posted results that show the JW's avoid education more than any other sect, though the behavior of your leadership actually makes it a cult.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You lied. Did you not? The article showed you lied. Are you not aware of what you said?
Are these not your words, "...your cult does not think much of education"?
I found them under your user name, so I don't think they belong to another user, do they?
Is that not a lie? It certainly isn't the truth, is it. It totally contradicts the truth.

I did not lie. The article discourages education and supports the claim that JW's do not think much of education. You said so yourself. Now are you saying that you lied in corroborating that article?

Never mind. I did not expect an apology from you. I just wanted to point out that one was warranted.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

How did he lie? I posted results that show the JW's avoid education more than any other sect, though the behavior of your leadership actually makes it a cult.

I do not know. He just yelled the accusation unjustly and seems to be holding to it. And after he acknowledged that they discourage education too. Strange. Very strange. But not unexpected.

Were I in his shoes, I would recognize my errors and apologize.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I believe he will explain himself. He usually does.

So you agree. You did not understand him and need him to explain it. I agree.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You lied. Did you not? The article showed you lied. Are you not aware of what you said?
Are these not your words, "...your cult does not think much of education"?
I found them under your user name, so I don't think they belong to another user, do they?
Is that not a lie? It certainly isn't the truth, is it. It totally contradicts the truth.

No. I did not lie. Those are my words and I never claimed that they are not my words. They are true and accurate based on the evidence in question. They are corroborated by the JW material that you and Subduction Zone were discussing and over which you agreed with him.

Is there not material on the Watchtower site that discourage education? Are you saying these do not exist? The material on jw.org downplays the value of a secular education while outwardly appearing to extol it and clearly promoting a religious education? That is the message I got.

So, based on this evidence, I was not lying. You have agreed to some of the evidence, so that leave you open to joining me as a liar by your own standards. A confusing position for you to be in, but maybe it is just one more of the many confusing positions you seem to hold and is of no bother to you.