-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Evolution My ToE
- Thread starter nPeace
- Start date
Bear Wild
Well-Known Member
Did you read the article carefully? It has no detractions from evolutionary change in understanding except in the earliest time where this model ( it is just a model of what could have happened) suggests that many fundamental aspects of prokaryote and eukaryote genetics changed rapidly setting up for the diversity that was to come. Thus evolutions goes through rapid diversification at times. I think it is a misleading term to call it the big bang with to much analogy to the universe equivalent.
The organisms we have today did not form from this event. Only the genetic potential in general terms.
Interesting later on we have this comment. I wonder if you read this?
"Will this be used by the ID camp? Perhaps – if they read that far into the paper. However, I am afraid that, if our goal as evolutionary biologists is to avoid providing any grist for the ID mill, we should simply claim that Darwin, "in principle", solved all the problems of the origin of biological complexity in his eye story, and only minor details remain to be filled in. Actually, I think the position of some ultra-darwinists is pretty close to that. However, I believe that this is totally counter-productive and such a notion is outright false. And, the ID folks are clever in their own perverse way, they see through such false simplicity and seize on it. I think we (students of evolution) should openly admit that emergence of new levels of complexity is a complex problem and should try to work out solutions some of which could be distinctly non-orthodox; ID, however, does not happen to be a viable solution to any problem. I think this is my approach here and elsewhere."
Bear Wild
Well-Known Member
If you are not an animal which all biological evidence shows we are, then what are you?
Current gorillas and lions evolved to their current genetic presentation the same way humans did so your assumption is incorrect.
Bear Wild
Well-Known Member
I am actually fairly familiar with Christian history thank you and has no influence on what I believe now.
Another ad hom. Lol.
"One fact contrary to ToE."
What, again? I think I posted it, in the reply you just quoted. Of course, there's always the Cambrian Explosion.
(And now, we will hear special pleadings.)
Yes I did read it. Koonin still reported the facts (which shouldn't be overlooked).....kudos to him!
Of course, he has to dismiss ID, to keep his status! I mean, ID is the only other choice to explain how diversity appeared (unless you wanna go the "aliens seeded it" route)...and the parameters of science don't allow for it.
Funny how thinking "God did it", never kept Newton or Boyle from trying to figure out how things work. It surely doesn't stop me.
Yes, exactly as you meant about boxes.
This is your entire argument. You got your answers from people that are not trained in science, do not understand it, nor want to understand it. In fact, they discourage understanding from all I have seen.
You spoke earlier of motives. The motive is pretty obvious. A religious agenda. Where reality does not match JW belief, belief is always correct. Since JW belief is subjective and can neither be validated nor universally considered, it is anti-intellectual to consider it at all in any scholarly discussion following the rules of logic.
I am disappointed. That surprised me more than anybody I think. I suppose I did have hope I would reach you with reason and evidence. Clearly no amount will do.
Your statements about JW numbers is just theological locker room banter. My religion is bigger than yours? Really? It is an add populum fallacy. Every presidential election in modern US history has more people agreeing. And that doesn't mean the best person for the job either. History is ripe with stories of large numbers of people agreeing to take a bad path.
You are essentially claiming all 8.5 million of you are of one mind and trapped in the same box. As generalizations go, I find It acceptable. But the reality is probably less than that, with no feasable means to fully support it one way or the other. It's just hyperbole with no value.
If I had said that JW was a religion of only a million and in decline,your facts would have meaning. Here, in this fiscussion, it is meaningless. Belief-based thinking in an attempt to overcome intellectual-based reason.
Wow! I read your entire post twice before starting this response. Not only is it anti-intellectual, it is laced with an arrogance that borders on haughty. You think very highly of what you believe and are not above persecuting the belief of others. Up until now, I have ignored it. But I cannot go on leaving it unrecognized.
This is more of your personal belief that has no merit in the discussion. How can you blame me for anything? You are not my judge. I would have to unconscious to miss the typical arrogance of that statement and what you are implying with it.
Your argument fails again.
Genesis has been compared many, many times with the evidence and it is not corroborated by that evidence. This has been done with such frequency, it is common knowledge. There is no evidence that all living things emerged fully formed as they are now. There is no one to one correspondence between the events of Genesis and the physical evidence. Your claims and those of Genesis do not hold up to honest, logical scrutiny.
The only evidence of a scientific source you have presented. You ignored my previous comments regarding your misinterpretation of the hypothesis rendered in the article. Likely due to your reading only the abstract and not the article itself. But even in the abstract it is clear that common descent is not being refuted, rather, it is being detailed and refined. It is no evidence to rebut our common ancestry with the other apes or with mammals and other vertebrate groups.
This is your personal opinion with no support other than that you believe it. Considering the actual evidence, viewing it a s allegory is the only way that makes sense. Your view is not supporting an intellectual approach. At the very least, it can be dismissed by not believing your personal view.
However, I came to my view based on a review of the Bible and evidence of the physical world. As many others have too. Apparently, I am not alone and others have stopped grazing on church doctrine and looked for themselves too.
Wouldn't loving others include not treating them like they were morons? You may want to think on that before writing your next post. Others might appreciate it more.
Referencing unverified religious text or sourcing a churches interpretation of the claims you believe is not evidence supporting your belief as fact. It does, however, support my position on intellectual basis of the creationist position.
It was a fair evaluation and your use of LOL is consistent with the arrogant, dismissive tone of your posts. I had refrained from addressing that until now, but others are seeing it too. You know, more than two witnesses.
For instance, I responded to the one piece of science you presented the first time. I explained your misinterpretation of that article. I have repeated it here. Anyone can go back and see that it is you that has been doing the ignoring.
Biased articles from a JW source with motives. They start with a lie that the fossil record is the only evidence for evolution and it is not supported from evidence in existing life. Except for morphology, genetics, genomics, cytogenetics, mutations, natural selection, ERV's, experimentation, etc., etc., etc. If we must skip back to Darwin, the bulk of "Origin of Speces" was evidence from existing species. I did not need to continue reading more falsehoods to better see the anti-intellectual motives.
You have failed to show that creationism is anything more than an anti-intellectual pursuit with an agenda to ignore evidence. Not a very loving relationship with science.
Last edited:
You overlooked what the article says. Against your advice here too.
This is just ridiculous. So much for brotherly love when it gets between reality and the church agenda. This is just more appeal to the magical, mysterious, unseen science conspiracy. Real contextual stuff here.
Funny how difficult it is for you to find scientists not hundreds of years dead and studying modern biology to draw on for support.
I think we are done here. You have paraded out a standard creationist argument and it has failed. Once again.
You should talk. Ad hominem is apparently a favorite of yours. I expected better and am very disappointed.
They don't defer to doctrine, dogma and deceit over the validity of logic, evidence and observation.Some reason you are allergic to respectable sources?
Then hoops that must be jumped through and the facts that are baked into pretzels.
Last edited:
The article proposes a new model for evolution, since the tree of life is too simplistic to capture basal evolution. It is not a revolutionary notion and comes out of evidence from genomics, biochemistry, and other fields of biology over the last 20+ years, including Woesse's hypothesis of a universal common ancestor pool and punctuated equilibria of Gould and Eldridge. The roots of the tree are murky due to horizontal gene flow and the model seeks to clear that up. It does not eliminate common ancestry. It refines what that means and where it can be placed. Even if Archae is derived from a distinct origin, there was still gene flow between that group and bacteria. There still have been symbiotic events possible from that exchange.
It was chosen to refute common ancestry, but it does not. It just moves the point of commonality around. Eukaryotes are still seen as a distinct and related lineage. I suspect it was chosen for the reasons you cite. The chooser does not have the understanding and technical knowledge to know what he is choosing.
Neither is contrary to the theory of evolution by the way.I
I know, I know. Church doctrine says and you must ignore reality in deference to doctrine.
How do you propose to convince us that you read the article and then made the contradictory and erroneous claims about the article that you offered us? I concede that I cannot know with certainty whether you read it. If you did, clearly you did not understand what is written there.
I am still laughing at your little joke about the great unseen science conspiracy your church demands you believe exists. It is unfortunate that your bias blinds you and leaves you unable to see such amusing comedy.
I believe in the Bible. But I am not so blind and arrogant to claim I know it better than others or that my way is the best way to interpret it. Every other interpreter is wrong because they just are.
I cannot verify the claims of the Bible, relevant to creationist claims, with evidence. In several examples those claims have been refuted by evidence where the Bible has been interpreted literally. Since those claims cannot be objectively confirmed so that you or any other person--believer or non-believer--can use it as evidence in a scientific discussion, it cannot be used as evidence in such a discussion. This is so, and no matter how strongly I or another believer may feel about it as the basis of Christian theology. Knowing and understanding this, I would be perpetuating a lie if I did turn to it as reason to deny scientific conclusions.
Where the stories of the Bible differ from the physical evidence does not drive me to the false assertion that reality must be wrong. The best explanation based on the evidence then must be that my understanding is faulty and it is the wisdom and lessons of those stories that are important. Not the factual validity of the events employed to convey those lesdons. Demanding that everyone must bury their heads in sand and ignore reality to satisfy an artficial, man made demand of infallibilty is an interpretation. It is not an intellectual approach. In fact, the Bible warns against doing that.
Audie
Veteran Member
You have posted noting contrary to ToE.
When you are able to, it will be unnecessary, as all the
world will know of this fantastic discovery.
That you think you’ve posted such certainly shows
you greatly overrate yourself.
No need to compare yourself to Newton and Boyle
to illustrate that again.
Nor do you need to keep showing you do not comprehend
what an ad hom is.
We do, of course, know why you employ such cheap
and shabby devices as "lol ad hom". Or, "now we will hear"
and making up something stupid for me to do.
It has an element of humour, thus demeaning yourself
while making such grandiose claims for yourself.
But it is also embarrassing to witness.
Last edited:
Audie
Veteran Member
As noted, the grotesquely overinflated rating one must give himself
in order to believe such things is embarrassing to observe.
Arrogant scarce begins to describe any person who thinks that
they are given "of" god to infallible bible readin'.
That they know more than any scientist on earth,
being able to prove their flood, disprove evolution
with (god give?) powers to do the right reading
or all data.
etc.
Arrogant, self aggrandizing and overconfident?
The comparison recently made to Boyle and Newton
may have been one of those Freudian slips we sometimes
hear about.
tas8831
Well-Known Member
Reading is hard - and one must be careful to avoid reading things that might counter their keyword-searching antics.
tas8831
Well-Known Member
At least he didn't plagiarize a bunch of stuff. That is progress.
tas8831
Well-Known Member
I especially like the mention of "special pleadings" - their ENTIRE foundation is premised on special pleading.