Evolution? How?

real life wrote:

farmerman wrote:

Often, sedimentary and stratigraphic analyses are more subject to the principles of Murphy"s Law than of Hutton's. We always have
to be aware of the special conditions that occur in any insitu sequence.

Isn't this just another way of saying that the objective is to find a way to fit the fossil or strata being analyzed into the evolutionary framework?

HMMM!

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
Most everyone's interpretation of the Bible is supported in some way by the Bible, neo.

You tend to leave your replies wanting, so they tend to elicit questions, like the one I asked, like the ones I've asked on other threads.
I deliberately make my replies short. If that causes folks to ask questions, I believe that is a reasonable consequence. As for the question you posed:
InfraBlue wrote:
What, that its obfuscating a Jehova's Witnesses' interpretation of it?
Could you explain its relevance? I'd like to be sure your argument is not ad hominem

I was responding to your answer to farmerman's reply about what you meant by this:

Quote:

I don't consider myself a creationist, IDer or believer in evolution. I respect science. The furor over faith vs. science is a smokescreen obfuscating the message of the bible.

meaning that the furor is obfuscating the moral messages of the Bible. You said, "right, mostly. But there is more to it."

I had gathered from what you've posted that you were either a Seventh Day Adventist, or a JW. You confirmed the latter on some other thread.

The question was earnest, merely asking if that is what you were referring to.

0 Replies

And the label is important for what reason?

0 Replies

real life ,

Quote:

Isn't this just another way of saying that the objective is to find a way to fit the fossil or strata being analyzed into the evolutionary framework?

Isnt your response just a way of saying that no matter how honest science tries to be, that you will try to find some way to try to disparage it? Im not sure why I keep trying to be reasonable with you since you are obviously unable to be objective and you wont ever take time to learn more than a "skin" of the data , and even this minor amount is pre-spun by your Cretin Network like AIG ..
For correct understanding,Fossils arent directed to fit an evolutionary model, nor are they force fit. When youve seen enough evidence and see how retained features continue on between say, fish and amphibians, reptiles and mammals, repriles and dinosaur and dinosaurs and birds, youll be more able to appreciate the work and scholarship that goes into these conclusions and how you, who hasnt spent any time in the field, really are unequipped to profer such comments.
Ignorance of the main points is where you live, and Ill defend your right to remain that way.

You arent an Evangelical minister are you? They usually tend to be unreasonably dense in their logic (or lack thereof)

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

You arent an Evangelical minister are you? They usually tend to be unreasonably dense in their logic (or lack thereof)

Whether one is an evangelical minister, a (GASP!) Jehovah's Witness, or (YIKES!) a politician is a priori proof of nothing. But you knew that, of course.

The only litmus test for truth is truth itself.

It is notable that the Jews were given this same advice in Deuteronomy chapter 13.

0 Replies

neologist, Not on your life. An Evangelical and jehovahs witness arew sworn to defeat evolution, no matter what the evidence. Real Life has been a consistent debator using half truths and misstatements, just like his last incorrect representation of what I posted.

Dont be concerned, hes making no points and is merely showing us all how closed his mind is to evidence.
Hes been dwelling on the word "circumstantial" just the same as he had originally been on "Theory" as if circumstantial evidence is somehow less than "eyewitness" accounts. Im sure , in all other sciences where he has no immediate stake, hed accept the same basis of circumstantiality without even a sound.
(eg Atomic Theory, germ theory,Gravity etc).

Now hes begun a small mamntra that we, as scientists, have been obfuscating results and deliberately "curve fitting" while, once in a while humans do try to pull a fast one and fool people on the sidelines, we have a habit of "cleaning house" frequently and careers built on deception dont last long.

The Discovery Institute, on the other hand, buys into faked evidence and drum beats it into church presentations with the Evangelical "Winnebago Road SHows" .
I was at such a "show" put on by some "Dr" (of Divinity) who gave an impassioned presentation about all the "evidence that the Creationists had amassed and how all this stuff supported the "Flood". It was loaded with a lot of the same debate points that RL uses and was as fact-free as could be attained without being a stand up comedy show.
The people bought it, (they didnt know better and I wasnt there to get beat up so I kept quiet).

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

The Discovery Institute, on the other hand, buys into faked evidence and drum beats it into church presentations with the Evangelical "Winnebago Road SHows" .
I was at such a "show" put on by some "Dr" (of Divinity) who gave an impassioned presentation about all the "evidence that the Creationists had amassed and how all this stuff supported the "Flood". It was loaded with a lot of the same debate points that RL uses and was as fact-free as could be attained without being a stand up comedy show.

And the next part kinda says it all...

farmerman wrote:

The people bought it, (they didnt know better...).

And that's the core of the problem; the people don't know any better than to believe pseudo-scientific crap (like ID and Creationism).

You solve this problem by giving future generations a better education in philosophy and science (and critical thinking which goes hand in hand with science).

Unfortunately, the potential solution (the education system, science class in particular) is currently under attack by politically (and theologically) motivated groups, who don't want future generations to "know any better".

0 Replies

oy. Im a bit miffed at RL because he fails to recognize that the CRI still supports the "Paluxy River" human footprints that are in the same shale beds as dinosaur footprints. The only thing is, even though the Creationists dont shut up about this outcrop in a creekbed, all scientists whove looked at the site agree that somebody merely carved the human footprint by disguising an existing dino track with achisel.
Theyve actually built a museum there and will take the "annointed" on trips through time showing how man and dinosaur were contemporaries. Then RL states that scientists discard or curve fit their data. Cheeesh.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

neologist, Not on your life. An Evangelical and jehovahs witness arew sworn to defeat evolution, no matter what the evidence.

Well, I can tell you I have never sworn to defeat evolution or any other field of study. I realize quite well that you have an indisputable preponderance of evidence, yet I still don't wholly agree with your conclusions.

Just as the bible does not restrict the creative period to 144 hours, it does not disallow the subsequent discoveries of science. It was written to explain the human condition to regular folks.

Scientific explanations are secondary.

For example: No doubt the average Hebrew wondered why God ordered circumcision on the eighth day of life; yet he obediently followed the rule. Did he have to be told that human prothrombin levels, while low at birth, reach 110% of normal on the eighth day?

No; still I am not surprised to have learned that.

0 Replies

neo said

Quote:

For example: No doubt the average Hebrew wondered why God ordered circumcision on the eighth day of life; yet he obediently followed the rule. Did he have to be told that human prothrombin levels, while low at birth, reach 110% of normal on the eighth day?

Youre engaging in a sort of autocorrelation here.
Funny, every time Ive been "visited " by Witnesses, I was , somewhere in their sales pitch, given the idea that somehow evolution was an evil thing. I used to work with a WItness when I was in chemistry and he was openly "prosyletizing". He was outrageous in his resolve about evolution and even though there were loads of geologists who came back from the field to the labs they would be openly accosted for their science and experience.
I believe Charles Taze Russell himself had openly preached that evolution was one of the "evils" of modernism.

0 Replies

Warning! Opinion follows!

The prothrombin example is one of many. I gave it because I believe it is wrong to assume that what has been discovered by science negates the validity of what the bible teaches.

The central issue in the Garden of Eden was God's sovereignty. That is all the fruit of the tree represented - God's right to set standards for his creation. And the issue has been waiting until our day to be resolved. Whether we like it or not, we are now being called upon to choose sides.

0 Replies

a rooster crows and the sun rises. Coincidence?, not according to neologist.

0 Replies

neologist,

In my opinion, the validity of the bible is not negated by science. Both science and the bible are valid within their own domains. Science restricts itself to natural explanations of natural phenomena. The bible deals with issues that transcend nature.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

a rooster crows and the sun rises. Coincidence?, not according to neologist.

The rooster senses the approach of dawn and crows. Subsequently the sun rises. Coincidence? not according to neologist.

What about you, farmer?

0 Replies

cmon neo, you know what I said ws my attempt at a bit of sarcasm . So you really believe that the briss is because of clotting?. Youve merely attempted to give some undue credit to a multithousand year old collection of myths and have attempted to validate the 8 day rule for a briss by HINTING that somehow the patriarchs were AWARE about how a babys clotting mechanism works .(Thas a lotta crap and you know it) Any Jew will tell you that the rule has only to do with the length of Creation plus 1. No more, no less.You tell that story to a rabbi and hell laugh at you.

You can hunt for as many coincidences as you wish, such as the 2 secretarys employed by Lincoln and Kennedy. The presence of a coincidence is just that . Try not to place any scientific meaning therein because you lose valuable credibility.

PS , most roosters crow all night, if you keep a light on in the coops, and since theyre inside you just dont notice it.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

cmon neo, you know what I said ws my attempt at a bit of sarcasm . So you really believe that the briss is because of clotting?.

As was my post, but you missed it.

farmerman wrote:

Youve merely attempted to give some undue credit to a multithousand year old collection of myths and have attempted to validate the 8 day rule for a briss by HINTING that somehow the patriarchs were AWARE about how a babys clotting mechanism works .

No, they were unaware. They simply obeyed without second guessing.

farmerman wrote:

(Thas a lotta crap and you know it) Any Jew will tell you that the rule has only to do with the length of Creation plus 1. No more, no less.You tell that story to a rabbi and hell laugh at you.

Not stated in scripture. Besides; creation took only six days, unless you can show me where in the bible the seventh day has ended.

farmerman wrote:

You can hunt for as many coincidences as you wish, such as the 2 secretarys employed by Lincoln and Kennedy. The presence of a coincidence is just that . Try not to place any scientific meaning therein because you lose valuable credibility.

You find geologic evidence which fits your belief system and it is proof. I offer scripture which supports my belief system and it is coincidence. How does that work again?

farmerman wrote:

PS , most roosters crow all night, if you keep a light on in the coops, and since theyre inside you just dont notice it.

You're the farmerman; you should know. Of course, before we had electricity, things might have been different for Chanticleer. Laughing

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

farmerman wrote:
The Discovery Institute, on the other hand, buys into faked evidence and drum beats it into church presentations with the Evangelical "Winnebago Road SHows" .
I was at such a "show" put on by some "Dr" (of Divinity) who gave an impassioned presentation about all the "evidence that the Creationists had amassed and how all this stuff supported the "Flood". It was loaded with a lot of the same debate points that RL uses and was as fact-free as could be attained without being a stand up comedy show.

And the next part kinda says it all...

farmerman wrote:
The people bought it, (they didnt know better...).

And that's the core of the problem; the people don't know any better than to believe pseudo-scientific crap (like ID and Creationism).

You solve this problem by giving future generations a better education in philosophy and science (and critical thinking which goes hand in hand with science).

Unfortunately, the potential solution (the education system, science class in particular) is currently under attack by politically (and theologically) motivated groups, who don't want future generations to "know any better".

This always cracks me up.

Yeah, the 'stupid public' argument from evolutionists is a favorite. You are the wise ones who know what's best for us, why don't we listen?

The public schools as they are, and have been, for decades are shining examples of the All-Evolution, All-the-Time format.

How much more control do you think you need? Would brainwashing techniques be helpful? Should we vote more funding for "re-education camps" for wayward adults?

Perhaps the reason why a larger percentage of people don't buy the evolution theory (just a possibility here) is because it builds a series of unlikely coincidences on top of a foundation of assumptions. And folks can see through that.

0 Replies

Folks can see right through the horseshit fairy tales about your imaginary friend, as well--which is why "creationism" cannot be foisted onto the public as science, and the same result will eventually be applied to ID, because of the idiotic insistence on attempting to include in science curricula. School boards don't canvass public opinion when establishing mathematics curricula--algebra is not subject to modification to suit the loony superstitions of a section of the public which likes to bully others on that basis. The same applies to science.

This is not a "stupid public" argument. That kind of propaganda, however, does appeal to the willfully ignorant, whose ignorance is self-imposed in deference to the supersitious regalia of their cult of the imaginary friend. For whatever successes cynical manipulators such as "real life" enjoy, their agenda is doomed. In the meantime, they severely impair the future prospects of all students who aren't taught critical analytical skills because they have such superstitious claptrap foisted onto them as equivalent to science.

0 Replies

Welcome back to the thread, Set. You apparently have a higher opinion of the typical school board member than I. Laughing

0 Replies

real life wrote:

This always cracks me up.

Yeah, the 'stupid public' argument from evolutionists is a favorite. You are the wise ones who know what's best for us, why don't we listen?

The public schools as they are, and have been, for decades are shining examples of the All-Evolution, All-the-Time format.

How much more control do you think you need? Would brainwashing techniques be helpful? Should we vote more funding for "re-education camps" for wayward adults?

Perhaps the reason why a larger percentage of people don't buy the evolution theory (just a possibility here) is because it builds a series of unlikely coincidences on top of a foundation of assumptions. And folks can see through that.

RL,
You are probably exagerating. As farmerman asked you before, why do you not have the same objection to the teaching of other scientific theories such as gravity?

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know