Genesis & Science - Friend or Foe?

[metis]

Could you please elaborate on how they used the ToE for that.

Because the flu virus mutates (evolves), so the scientists have to try and figure out which strain is most likely to mutate in ways that could pose the greatest threat to human life for the following flu season.

With studies of bacteria, much the same kind of research is taking place in order to figure out how they have mutated and what's the best likely solution. Some of our antibiotics are no longer working on more recent strains, so they're trying to devise new drugs that may.

The point is that all life forms evolve over time, and there's not one shred of evidence that indicates that they hit some sort of magical wall before arriving at "macro-evolution". .

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Getting testier? That was a corny one. Who taught you that one?

So you're at the ridicule stage now? This is the second stage of apologetics, and the first decompensation stage. The apologist begins like you did - staid, even, unemotional, etc.. After awhile, he gets fristrated that he isn't making progress - that his ideas are being rejected.

Then comes the ridicule - the "ha-ha-ha"s and eye-rolling emojis.

The third stage is overt anger and hostility.

If you're going to post emotionally, it might be noticed and commented upon as I am doing now. Such behavior is inappropriate. It impedes progress and the exchange of ideas.

Whomever you tried this stuff on, and it seemed to work, or your friends laughed, and made you feel like Mr. Smart... You got fooled again.

No, I had been fooled, but extricated myself from what was increasingly evidently seen to be a sterile ideology. I needed more.

Actually, it's people like you that make me feel smart when you make comments like that. Stupid people don't read things like that one. I never called myself smart. You did, albeit condescendingly according to your second stage of apologetics - the ridicule born of frustration. It happens every time.

And yes, I am correct. You are personally offended by my rejecting Christianity and calling the transition to secular humanism an improvement. What else could be eliciting all of this emotion from you? Do yourself a favor and learn to conceal it if you can. Your status just fell through the floor. The entire nature of our relationship and discussion has changed.

As they say in courtroom dramas when the witness, who had been friendly becomes hostile, "Your honor, permission to treat the witness as hostile." When you lapse into this state, you give your collocutor permission to comment on areas he might have felt uncomfortable broaching before as is happening here and now. You don't want that happening to you.

Did you ever see My Little Chickadee starring Mae West? There is a scene in the movie in which Ms. West has approached the judge in a courtroom scene, and makes a snide remark under her breath. The judge angrily asks (paraphrasing), “Mrs. West. Are you trying to show contempt for this court?” to which she replied, “No, your honor. I’m doing my damnedest to conceal it.”

Good advice.

LOL I believe you were filled with a spirit. Likely it was more than one.

No. There is no evidence that spirits exist. I was having a psychological experience that I mistook for the spirit that I was promised would visit me, the Holy Spirit. That turned out to be an unkept promise.

I have no use in my life for ideas like spirits, and plenty of good reason to avoid believing in such things by faith. Faith was harmful to me. I made a very bad decision once based in faith. It's a poor method for deciding anything, and I've learned how to avoid it.

I was right then. See. You were fooled

If this is fooled, then give me more. My life has been a good one. I have no complaints. My choices were good ones for me. I hope that yours brought you a good life.

I feel for you. Honestly. I mean that. You went in empty, and came out emptier... There was nothing there.

I came out of Christianity emptier than I went into it? Possibly, but my cup is full today. What I want from life is love, beauty, friends, respect, autonomy, a sense of purpose, and freedom from want, shame, fear, and regret. I have that. What do you think that your religion has to offer a person that's happy?

For the last time... Biblical faith is evidence based

Feel free to say it as often as you like. Your mere assertion has no persuasive power. I know what religious-type faith is. You merely disagreeing is meaningless.

You need to convince others of your claim. You don't even try beyond repeating yourself. Did you see what I wrote to @usfan about indoctrination versus academic teaching? What you are doing is simply repeating yourself again and again with no evidence or argument in support of your claim. What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without rebuttal.

You also are having trouble with the concept of evidence. Evolution has the evidence - you know, the bones, DNA, comparative anatomy and embryology, ring species, evolution observed, etc. Creationism does not. Believing it anyway is what blind faith is. This is not the same as the faith that I have that my car will start the next time I test it like it has the last 500 times it was started. That's justified belief supported by evidence, a very different thing than religious-type faith.

Explain why Biblical faith is not like this illustration

I've already done that. Do you remember the discussion on justified belief versus unjustified belief? When you have "faith" based in evidence, you have a justified belief. When you decide to believe something because you want it to be true, your belief is unjustified, and your faith is of the religious type. These are two different words spelled and pronounced the same. but with two antithetical meanings, like dust - when you dust your home, you are removing dust. When you dust for prints, you are adding dust. Two words with antithetical meanings spelled and pronounced the same - homonyms.

What is a Christian?

I realize that many Christians define a Christian as one who faithfully follows the teachings attributed to Christ, but I don't require that. That's a No True Christian fallacy (I've renamed the fallacy, since I only ever see it used in this context).

My definition of a Christian is a person who accepts Christian dogma, and I take people at their word if they tell me they are a Christian, which one could call a second definition of Christian - anyone who calls himself that. It's the one the census takers use to determine how many Christians, for example, there are in a given country or the world. They don't do a background check on either their beliefs or their behavior.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

It's the ones who do "not allow a divine foot in the door"

Where would introducing a god help in any endeavor? Certainly not in science.

I've just explained how faith poisons science as it did with the ID movement, and how gods add nothing to scientific theories. Science will invoke divinity if and when it needs to - when that idea adds something of value. Ccience keeps making progress without religious beliefs. Why change a winning program?

I see that you opted to not explain why we should throw out a useful scientific theory for a religious idea that can't be used for anything. It's really a rhetorical question that nobody ever answers because it needs no answer, and there is no good answer. We wouldn't, and we won't. That's the point. Until you can explain why we should trade in a car that starts for one that hasn't ever started, you're not going to be have many takers.

You're ( @nPeace ) still evading this question, which has now been asked of you twice, still unanswered (Ø). I ask you again - why would we throw out what works and substitute religious alternatives that aren't useful for anything?

As I explained earlier, if you choose not to answer an issue, your answer will be chosen for you based on what seems likeliest. You always have the opportunity to do your part and speak for yourself as is expected of you. Your answer will be that nobody has a reason to do what I described, since there is no possible way for you defend trading in a useful idea for a useless one.

When the fat lady sings, we'll see who's laughing.

I guess the carrot of Christianity - the promise of eternity in heaven praising a god with the people who were willing to believe without evidence - isn't appealing enough, so turn to the stick with veiled threats of punishment.

• "To the philosophy of atheism belongs the credit of robbing death of its horror and its terror. It brought about the abolition of Hell." - Joseph Lewis

Sorry, but I'm simply not afraid of Christianity's threats just as you are not afraid of the Muslim threat that Allah will punish you for worshiping the wrong god.

By the way, you wanted to know what a Christian is, among other things, this ↑ - people who themselves have been snagged by the threat of hell hoping to terrorize others into submission. It's one of the least appealing aspects of this religion, and when done to children constitutes child abuse.

That's the problem with faith (insufficiently justified belief). It makes one vulnerable to manipulation like this. If they can get you to believe in a hell without any evidence for it, they just may be able to manipulate you much of the rest of your life.

Please explain why evolution (I assume you are referring to that) is a "useful scientific theory"

You can Google the applications of evolutionary science yourself. I believe that I have offered to help you understand your research material if you do some independent exploration. Come back with links to what you found and studied, and cite the problem passages.

I'm at the place now where I need the apologist to make at least that much effort first to convince me that he is sincere about learning. I've wasted too much time in the past with apologists clamoring for evidence that they never see, don't understand, hand-wave away, or ignore.

Here's your chance to show those people who told you that they think that Jehovah's Witnesses are anti-intellectual and anti-education how wrong they were by demonstrating that you are interested in learning something academic. You can tell them that when you wanted to know what the benefits of evolutionary science were to man, you eventually went and learned a little science on your own because you valued the knowledge. You wanted to know, and you pursued and acquired the knowledge (Ø).

I saw nothing in your posts to anger me. I ask again... what makes you think that?

Your word choice reveals your emotional state. You've begun ridiculing and insulting me. It belies an emotional reaction on your part. It happens every time. The unbeliever makes a criticism of the religion or is not persuaded by some piece of apologetics, and the believer takes personal offense and attacks the source.

It's a skill to conceal one's emotional state in his writing - one easily learned, but only if one is aware of how transparent we are until we learn to do that. Many people never learn it, but think that their emotional states are concealed anyway, but they are not.

It's a necessary skill in dealing with the public when you need to be liked, believed, trusted or respected to be effective, as with sales, law, and medicine.

 

[nPeace]

It was almost as if it were meant to be.



The reason that I said that was because your posts indicated that you thought that was the case. But it is nice to see that you realize that common descent can be tested.



The creationists for the most part have run away. For that reason there will be many people correcting your errors.



Now that is quite a tall claim. Why is extrapolation not "good science"? You seem to have forgotten that those extrapolations will be tested as well. But let's see what you have.


Actually it is. It is all of those. If extrapolations do not match reality then it fails the test right there. It appears that you do not understand how extrapolation is done in the sciences and why.



Yes, that could be called "extrapolation" and it is experimental since each extrapolation is in effect an experiment. It is observable since we can observe if extrapolations match up to reality. It is repeatable since we can extrapolations can be repeated.



But you never even learned what evidence is in the first place. You are trying to jump ahead when you have not learned the basics yet.




Yes, the JW website is clearly against education. You had to avoid quoting where it was against higher education. You may try to redefine it but that does not change the fact that it is anti-education. By trying to put down higher education they only support our claims.

It's easy to rattle off words.
Let's see how reasonable you are.

#1
Using the statements here:
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!

Please, explain how it is different to this:
When humans train by using heavier weights, they build strength.
When this strength builds up by the use of continuous training, over millions of years, humans become superhuman - gods.

Please explain by way of examples, how the above extrapolations, are in keeping with the scientific method. In other words, what experiments are conducted, and repeated, as well as the observations acquired.

Please note that the science "text book" does not say, "Based on XYZ evidence, blah blah blah..." Rather, it says, "When such small changes build up over the course of millions of years, they translate into evolution on a grand scale."

#2
Where is the logic...
Because someone discourages A, they are against B.
So, because someone discourages unwholesome entertainment, they are against entertainment. Because they discourage bad association, they are against association. Because they discourage material pursuits, or materialism, they are against anything material, and thus encourage a life of poverty. Because they discourage higher education (giving reasons that are not anti-educational), they discourage education.

How is this reasonable?

 

[nPeace]

So you're at the ridicule stage now? This is the second stage of apologetics, and the first decompensation stage. The apologist begins like you did - staid, even, unemotional, etc.. After awhile, he gets fristrated that he isn't making progress - that his ideas are being rejected.

Then comes the ridicule - the "ha-ha-ha"s and eye-rolling emojis.

The third stage is overt anger and hostility.

If you're going to post emotionally, it might be noticed and commented upon as I am doing now. Such behavior is inappropriate. It impedes progress and the exchange of ideas.



No, I had been fooled, but extricated myself from what was increasingly evidently seen to be a sterile ideology. I needed more.

Actually, it's people like you that make me feel smart when you make comments like that. Stupid people don't read things like that one. I never called myself smart. You did, albeit condescendingly according to your second stage of apologetics - the ridicule born of frustration. It happens every time.

And yes, I am correct. You are personally offended by my rejecting Christianity and calling the transition to secular humanism an improvement. What else could be eliciting all of this emotion from you? Do yourself a favor and learn to conceal it if you can. Your status just fell through the floor. The entire nature of our relationship and discussion has changed.

As they say in courtroom dramas when the witness, who had been friendly becomes hostile, "Your honor, permission to treat the witness as hostile." When you lapse into this state, you give your collocutor permission to comment on areas he might have felt uncomfortable broaching before as is happening here and now. You don't want that happening to you.

Did you ever see My Little Chickadee starring Mae West? There is a scene in the movie in which Ms. West has approached the judge in a courtroom scene, and makes a snide remark under her breath. The judge angrily asks (paraphrasing), “Mrs. West. Are you trying to show contempt for this court?” to which she replied, “No, your honor. I’m doing my damnedest to conceal it.”

Good advice.



No. There is no evidence that spirits exist. I was having a psychological experience that I mistook for the spirit that I was promised would visit me, the Holy Spirit. That turned out to be an unkept promise.

I have no use in my life for ideas like spirits, and plenty of good reason to avoid believing in such things by faith. Faith was harmful to me. I made a very bad decision once based in faith. It's a poor method for deciding anything, and I've learned how to avoid it.



If this is fooled, then give me more. My life has been a good one. I have no complaints. My choices were good ones for me. I hope that yours brought you a good life.



I came out of Christianity emptier than I went into it? Possibly, but my cup is full today. What I want from life is love, beauty, friends, respect, autonomy, a sense of purpose, and freedom from want, shame, fear, and regret. I have that. What do you think that your religion has to offer a person that's happy?



Feel free to say it as often as you like. Your mere assertion has no persuasive power. I know what religious-type faith is. You merely disagreeing is meaningless.

You need to convince others of your claim. You don't even try beyond repeating yourself. Did you see what I wrote to @usfan about indoctrination versus academic teaching? What you are doing is simply repeating yourself again and again with no evidence or argument in support of your claim. What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without rebuttal.





I've already done that. Do you remember the discussion on justified belief versus unjustified belief? When you have "faith" based in evidence, you have a justified belief. When you decide to believe something because you want it to be true, your belief is unjustified, and your faith is of the religious type. These are two different words spelled and pronounced the same. but with two antithetical meanings, like dust - when you dust your home, you are removing dust. When you dust for prints, you are adding dust. Two words with antithetical meanings spelled and pronounced the same - homonyms.



I realize that many Christians define a Christian as one who faithfully follows the teachings attributed to Christ, but I don't require that. That's a No True Christian fallacy (I've renamed the fallacy, since I only ever see it used in this context).

My definition of a Christian is a person who accepts Christian dogma, and I take people at their word if they tell me they are a Christian, which one could call a second definition of Christian - anyone who calls himself that. It's the one the census takers use to determine how many Christians, for example, there are in a given country or the world. They don't do a background check on either their beliefs or their behavior.

Okay, so I misinterpreted your posts, as not being sincere, but just trying to be smart. i apologize for that.

So you can't give an example about your wrong use of the word faith, from a Biblical perspective. that's okay.

A Christian is one who "accepts Christian dogma". ??? I don't understand that statement. Feel free to explain if you can.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's easy to rattle off words.
Let's see how reasonable you are.

#1
Using the statements here:
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!

Please, explain how it is different to this:
When humans train by using heavier weights, they build strength.
When this strength builds up by the use of continuous training, over millions of years, humans become superhuman - gods.


Please explain by way of examples, how the above extrapolations, are in keeping with the scientific method. In other words, what experiments are conducted, and repeated, as well as the observations acquired.

Please note that the science "text book" does not say, "Based on XYZ evidence, blah blah blah..." Rather, it says, "When such small changes build up over the course of millions of years, they translate into evolution on a grand scale."

You really need to work on your posting. Try to avoid excessive green ink and simply ask your questions without all the fluff. That you do not understand how evolution works is not evidence against it. And please, don't ask others if they can be reasonable when you can't be reasonable yourself. An individual human exercising can only build up his own strength. His exercising is not passed on genetically. Ergo people cannot become "superhuman-gods" by exercising. Your question tells us that you have no clue on how evolution works. You are proposing Lamarckism, not evolution.

#2
Where is the logic...
Because someone discourages A, they are against B.
So, because someone discourages unwholesome entertainment, they are against entertainment. Because they discourage bad association, they are against association. Because they discourage material pursuits, or materialism, they are against anything material, and thus encourage a life of poverty. Because they discourage higher education (giving reasons that are not anti-educational), they discourage education.

How is this reasonable?

Please, you are not using logic. Your cult is not against "unwholesome education" they are against education and lie by calling it unwholesome. Like it or not your cult is against education and they have publicly stated that they are. They use weak excuses, but those only fool the Kool-Aid drinkers.

 

[nPeace]

Where would introducing a god help in any endeavor? Certainly not in science.

I've just explained how faith poisons science as it did with the ID movement, and how gods add nothing to scientific theories. Science will invoke divinity if and when it needs to - when that idea adds something of value. Ccience keeps making progress without religious beliefs. Why change a winning program?



You're ( @nPeace ) still evading this question, which has now been asked of you twice, still unanswered (Ø). I ask you again - why would we throw out what works and substitute religious alternatives that aren't useful for anything?

As I explained earlier, if you choose not to answer an issue, your answer will be chosen for you based on what seems likeliest. You always have the opportunity to do your part and speak for yourself as is expected of you. Your answer will be that nobody has a reason to do what I described, since there is no possible way for you defend trading in a useful idea for a useless one.



I guess the carrot of Christianity - the promise of eternity in heaven praising a god with the people who were willing to believe without evidence - isn't appealing enough, so turn to the stick with veiled threats of punishment.

• "To the philosophy of atheism belongs the credit of robbing death of its horror and its terror. It brought about the abolition of Hell." - Joseph Lewis

Sorry, but I'm simply not afraid of Christianity's threats just as you are not afraid of the Muslim threat that Allah will punish you for worshiping the wrong god.

By the way, you wanted to know what a Christian is, among other things, this ↑ - people who themselves have been snagged by the threat of hell hoping to terrorize others into submission. It's one of the least appealing aspects of this religion, and when done to children constitutes child abuse.

That's the problem with faith (insufficiently justified belief). It makes one vulnerable to manipulation like this. If they can get you to believe in a hell without any evidence for it, they just may be able to manipulate you much of the rest of your life.



You can Google the applications of evolutionary science yourself. I believe that I have offered to help you understand your research material if you do some independent exploration. Come back with links to what you found and studied, and cite the problem passages.

I'm at the place now where I need the apologist to make at least that much effort first to convince me that he is sincere about learning. I've wasted too much time in the past with apologists clamoring for evidence that they never see, don't understand, hand-wave away, or ignore.

Here's your chance to show those people who told you that they think that Jehovah's Witnesses are anti-intellectual and anti-education how wrong they were by demonstrating that you are interested in learning something academic. You can tell them that when you wanted to know what the benefits of evolutionary science were to man, you eventually went and learned a little science on your own because you valued the knowledge. You wanted to know, and you pursued and acquired the knowledge (Ø).



Your word choice reveals your emotional state. You've begun ridiculing and insulting me. It belies an emotional reaction on your part. It happens every time. The unbeliever makes a criticism of the religion or is not persuaded by some piece of apologetics, and the believer takes personal offense and attacks the source.

It's a skill to conceal one's emotional state in his writing - one easily learned, but only if one is aware of how transparent we are until we learn to do that. Many people never learn it, but think that their emotional states are concealed anyway, but they are not.

It's a necessary skill in dealing with the public when you need to be liked, believed, trusted or respected to be effective, as with sales, law, and medicine.

It does not matter to me that you make wrong assertions.
I think this explains why your earlier posts were statements about, basically my being set in religious beliefs, but I really paid no mind to them. I now realize that you were hoping they had some effect, hence why you brought up the whole emotional thingy.
It all makes sense now.
You are wrong though, but I won't try to convince you of that either. The entire heavenly host knows how wrong you are, so what's a few opinions and hopes, and dreams, otherwise.

On your question. It seems quite lopsided, so I have to answer this way.
Faith works for millions of people, including myself, so I don't see why one should throw it away for an ideology.
I said this before though.... many times.
So I did answer your question, but I think when one is looking for a particular answer, they usually ignore anything else.

 

[nPeace]

You really need to work on your posting. Try to avoid excessive green ink and simply ask your questions without all the fluff. That you do not understand how evolution works is not evidence against it. And please, don't ask others if they can be reasonable when you can't be reasonable yourself. An individual human exercising can only build up his own strength. His exercising is not passed on genetically. Ergo people cannot become "superhuman-gods" by exercising. Your question tells us that you have no clue on how evolution works. You are proposing Lamarckism, not evolution.




Please, you are not using logic. Your cult is not against "unwholesome education" they are against education and lie by calling it unwholesome. Like it or not your cult is against education and they have publicly stated that they are. They use weak excuses, but those only fool the Kool-Aid drinkers.

Like I said, it's easy to rattle off words. That's the best you can do.
@Subduction Zone also, you don't read properly. that's unwholesome entertainment.

 

[nPeace]

Because the flu virus mutates (evolves), so the scientists have to try and figure out which strain is most likely to mutate in ways that could pose the greatest threat to human life for the following flu season.

With studies of bacteria, much the same kind of research is taking place in order to figure out how they have mutated and what's the best likely solution. Some of our antibiotics are no longer working on more recent strains, so they're trying to devise new drugs that may.

The point is that all life forms evolve over time, and there's not one shred of evidence that indicates that they hit some sort of magical wall before arriving at "macro-evolution". .

The flue virus adapts, like everything else, including your immune system. This has nothing to do with ToE.
Every surgeon knew this centuries before about the body - it's ability to adapt to it's surroundings, and other circumstances.
Your teeth, your brain, you name it. It's a natural occurrence.
Is that not so?

@metis By the way, we see in reality life forms adapting - you call it evolution, but apparently there is a magic fairy that does what we see not one shred of evidence for - morphing into different organisms.
That to me, shows how some are so willing to accept magic, when it supports their view.

 

[nPeace]

Could you expand? To me, the two are in direct contradiction. Perhaps you could explain why you see it differently?

The two what are in direct contradiction?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Like I said, it's easy to rattle off words. That's the best you can do.
@Subduction Zone also, you don't read properly. that's unwholesome entertainment.

I was not talking about the nonsense that you posted. I was talking about the attitude of the leaders of your cult towards education.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The flue virus adapts, like everything else, including your immune system. This has nothing to do with ToE.
Every surgeon knew this centuries before about the body - it's ability to adapt to it's surroundings, and other circumstances.
Your teeth, your brain, you name it. It's a natural occurrence.
Is that not so?

No. Evolution deals with how populations change through genetics. To be specific it is the change in the allele frequencies of a population over time. The theory allows scientists to predict the changes in the flu virus since next year's will not be the same as this year's virus. Sometimes there predictions are off and the vaccine is not as effective as it could be. Without the proper application of evolution they would be shooting in the dark.

That to me, shows how some are so willing to accept magic, when it supports their view.

No, your inability to understand does not make evolution magical. Magic is your belief, not ours.

 

[nPeace]

I was not talking about the nonsense that you posted. I was talking about the attitude of the leaders of your cult towards education.

Speaking of nonsense SZ...
I hope you did not get a higher education, because I would be embarrassed to know that I got a higher education, and "reason" the way you do.
To state that to discourage higher education, is to be against education, is a highly illogical statement.
It demonstrates that knowledge is not common sense, nor wisdom.
Wisdom is prime. It is the ability to use knowledge, in the proper or right way. So academics, or having degrees, does not put one above a person who has a basic education.

 

[sooda]

Speaking of nonsense SZ...
I hope you did not get a higher education, because I would be embarrassed to know that I got a higher education, and "reason" the way you do.
To state that to discourage higher education, is to be against education, is a highly illogical statement.
It demonstrates that knowledge is not common sense, nor wisdom.
Wisdom is prime. It is the ability to use knowledge, in the proper or right way. So academics, or having degrees, does not put one above a person who has a basic education.

In many fields a higher education is extremely important.. consider law, medicine, chemistry, pharmaceuticals, banking and finance just for starters.

 

[nPeace]

No. Evolution deals with how populations change through genetics. To be specific it is the change in the allele frequencies of a population over time. The theory allows scientists to predict the changes in the flu virus since next year's will not be the same as this year's virus. Sometimes there predictions are off and the vaccine is not as effective as it could be. Without the proper application of evolution they would be shooting in the dark.



No, your inability to understand does not make evolution magical. Magic is your belief, not ours.

I don't care what you call natural processes such as reproduction, adaptation, etc. It does not change the fact that these have been ongoing for centuries, Scientist are only studying nature and learning from it. It has nothing to do with ToE.
If I opened the hood of a vehicle, and did not understand the workings of the engine, I would be shooting in the dark. The engine functions the way it does, because it was designed to do so. Similar to nature.
Your inability to understand these facts, are due to your willingness to be ignorant. However, willful ignorance does not excuse accountability.

 

[nPeace]

In many fields a higher education is extremely important.. consider law, medicine, chemistry, pharmaceuticals, banking and finance just for starters.

If you are pursuing those, then you are required to follow the system. If you are not, is it a requirement? Do you want to be an electrician, an appliance repair man, a construction worker? What do you do? You learn the trade. Where?

 

[sooda]

I don't care what you call natural processes such as reproduction, adaptation, etc. It does not change the fact that these have been ongoing for centuries, Scientist are only studying nature and learning from it. It has nothing to do with ToE.
If I opened the hood of a vehicle, and did not understand the workings of the engine, I would be shooting in the dark. The engine functions the way it does, because it was designed to do so. Similar to nature.
Your inability to understand these facts, are due to your willingness to be ignorant. However, willful ignorance does not excuse accountability.

I get that you are self righteous are you also a mechanical engineer?

 

[nPeace]

I get that you are self righteous are you also a mechanical engineer?

Self righteous, because you say so? I don't mind that, coming from one who attacks God and the Bible. It's a clear indication that anyone who stands on the side of right, will be attacked and criticized by you. It's expected.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Speaking of nonsense SZ...
I hope you did not get a higher education, because I would be embarrassed to know that I got a higher education, and "reason" the way you do.
To state that to discourage higher education, is to be against education, is a highly illogical statement.
It demonstrates that knowledge is not common sense, nor wisdom.
Wisdom is prime. It is the ability to use knowledge, in the proper or right way. So academics, or having degrees, does not put one above a person who has a basic education.

I am sorry, but your post is laughably illogical. You demonstrated a lack of understanding of what education is in the first place. But then you have no choice but to defend your cult.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Self righteous, because you say so? I don't mind that, coming from one who attacks God and the Bible. It's a clear indication that anyone who stands on the side of right, will be attacked and criticized by you. It's expected.

Again, you do not stand "on the right side". The leadership of the JW's oppose education because the truth shall set ye free.