A Request for Gottservant

[Old Ned]

Hey Gotts, I wonder if you would indulge me.

Since it occurs to me and several other members here that you have a healthy imagination and many questions about many things.

One of your most prolific topics seems to revolve around The Theory of Evolution.

With this in mind, some of us are trying to answer your questions as best as we can, but there appears to be an issue with communication.

Would it be too much to ask that you post your outline of what you know about Evolution.
It doesn't have to be an essay, just an outline of your knowledge of 3 things.

1: Scientific Method
2: Scientific Theory
3: The Theory of Evolution

Don't look these up (for the moment), just what your own knowledge of each of the 3 is at the present time.

I believe it would help clarify many of your questions and would give those who try to give you answers, an insight into what you already know.

This is NOT an invite for ridicule, I am 100% genuine here and believe answering the above will help all round.

If you decide to decline that's fine. After all, we all have free will.

Thanks for your time

 

[poolerboy0077]

This will be entertaining.

 

[Paradoxum]

Personally, I'd at least like to know what he thinks the theory of evolution is.

 

[Old Ned]

No, no. I'm serious.

I think much of what gets explained to him gets lost in the heat of debate or overwhelming answers to read.

So I thought if he posts what he actually knows, then those who try to help would be able to pinpoint any possible correction that may be needed.

Also individual points could be clarified.

 

[AV1611VET]

Hey Gotts, I wonder if you would indulge me.

Since it occurs to me and several other members here that you have a healthy imagination and many questions about many things.

One of your most prolific topics seems to revolve around The Theory of Evolution.

With this in mind, some of us are trying to answer your questions as best as we can, but there appears to be an issue with communication.

Would it be too much to ask that you post your outline of what you know about Evolution.
It doesn't have to be an essay, just an outline of your knowledge of 3 things.

1: Scientific Method
2: Scientific Theory
3: The Theory of Evolution

Don't look these up (for the moment), just what your own knowledge of each of the 3 is at the present time.

I believe it would help clarify many of your questions and would give those who try to give you answers, an insight into what you already know.

This is NOT an invite for ridicule, I am 100% genuine here and believe answering the above will help all round.

If you decide to decline that's fine. After all, we all have free will.

Thanks for your time

Perhaps you should specify which version you're talking about.

Eight years ago Solar System 3.0 got upgraded to Solar System 4.0.

And unless Gott has had his head buried in Slientific Americant, he's probably behind in all the add-ons and extensions.

 

[Old Ned]

Perhaps you should specify which version you're talking about.

Eight years ago Solar System 3.0 got upgraded to Solar System 4.0.

And unless Gott has had his head buried in Slientific Americant, he's probably behind in all the add-ons and extensions.

I'm not going to answer the "Version" comment.

Point is, it doesn't matter if he knows all or any of it, point is I'm asking him to briefly outline what he DOES know, whether it is accurate or up to date or not.

 

[bhsmte]

Hey Gotts, I wonder if you would indulge me.

Since it occurs to me and several other members here that you have a healthy imagination and many questions about many things.

One of your most prolific topics seems to revolve around The Theory of Evolution.

With this in mind, some of us are trying to answer your questions as best as we can, but there appears to be an issue with communication.

Would it be too much to ask that you post your outline of what you know about Evolution.
It doesn't have to be an essay, just an outline of your knowledge of 3 things.

1: Scientific Method
2: Scientific Theory
3: The Theory of Evolution

Don't look these up (for the moment), just what your own knowledge of each of the 3 is at the present time.

I believe it would help clarify many of your questions and would give those who try to give you answers, an insight into what you already know.

This is NOT an invite for ridicule, I am 100% genuine here and believe answering the above will help all round.

If you decide to decline that's fine. After all, we all have free will.

Thanks for your time

I applaud you for the effort, but I think you may be spinning your wheels.

 

[Old Ned]

I applaud you for the effort, but I think you may be spinning your wheels.

Then I shall put towels under the tires

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm not going to answer the "Version" comment.

Point is, it doesn't matter if he knows all or any of it, point is I'm asking him to briefly outline what he DOES know, whether it is accurate or up to date or not.

Fair enough.

I was just afraid you were expecting the KJV* 2014 version.

* King James [McGraw-Hill] Version

 

[Old Ned]

Fair enough.

I was just afraid you were expecting the KJV* 2014 version.

* King James [McGraw-Hill] Version

This thread has nothing to do with any kinds of Religion or Deities.

This thread is about Scientific knowledge. I'd like to concentrate on that if we may

 

[AV1611VET]

This thread has nothing to do with any kinds of Religion or Deities.

This thread is about Scientific knowledge. I'd like to concentrate on that if we may

I didn't say a word about religion, my friend.

You do know James McGraw of McGraw-Hill textbooks, no?

 

[Old Ned]

I am not. But I made an assumption that KJV was a reference to the King James Bible?

And besides, it doesn't matter what I expect, I wish to be informed.

 

[Lost Angel]

Why must AV make himself the center of attention SO often?

I am anxious to read Gottservants response.

 

[Gottservant]

From the top of my head, based on my experience studying the philosophy of science at University and the principle of objectivity.

To be objective, is to regard the impartial as one possibility (and every other possibility as assumed to be balanced).

The scientific method, therefore, is to reduce any query to its working components, establish a systemically reliable way of recreating (ultimately arbitrary) interactions between those components, so as to justify the most useful interpretation of those components in their work as relates to the question. If the question is why do apples fall, then, the scientific method must distinguish apple, fall, and plurality of motion, in the implied context of Earth for which the most useful interpretation is gravity, specifically local gravity, since the distances mentioned are not universe wide in expanse.

You want to argue with that, try arguing that I should have suggested trial and error, as if I could be wrong (I don't have to, so I didn't, but if you want to argue maybe try that).

What's the next thing, oh yeah, scientific theory.

Maintaining that scientific theory is to be objective such that alternatives generated by the theory are all considered balanced the impartiality of such theory being deliberately but admittedly riskily assumed to be impartial, the point of such theory is to provide as many practical configurations to the working of the components in a given question as would provide the correct interpretation for outcomes either specified or unspecified, from among the valid interpretations generated given varying contexts and interpretation.

You want to argue with that, try arguing that scientific theory can be effective with a less than balanced approach (you will have a hard time arguing that balance is of limited value, but if you want to argue try that)

The theory of Evolution?

The theory of Evolution was proclaimed by Darwin to be an attempt to answer the question, how is Creation by God not obviously suffering (implied with no point)? In other words, if God was Himself to become a part of Creation how would He not suffer? (this is from a quote concerning Evolution and God, I have lost the reference other than to say it was in "the Selection of Preferred Races") At the level of principle, the mistake here is to think that God would excuse Himself from suffering, as a reasoned understanding of suffering is that it produces greater good than would otherwise have been possible if nothing suffered. That said, the question remains useful in that it highlights that regarding suffering as useful requires a leap of faith that can be explained for practical purposes as an action of physical law. The answer Darwin came up with is that species are disposable, change is inevitable, context is variable and outcomes are unpredictable. He put all this together in the context of a competition and concluded that God would challenge Creation to perfect itself over time, before entering into its hardship. This is not true. However, once again it proves useful, this time as an example of how much we lose sight of when we don't expressly do the will of God, which is treat life as valuable, change as predictable, context as focused, and outcomes as a function of choice. This exists together in the context of Heaven on Earth, where everyone cooperates (imagine that for a second). This context, is what the Bible predicts and is that which every believer anticipates with joy.

Everything else about scientific theory or method or favoured selection is up for grabs, there are no memes that prove every other meme is wrong, there is no argument that proves every other argument must change, there is no perspective that demonstrates every other perspective can be forgotten. All these things are implied subtexts of people who have no faith in God, and therefore no faith in other people that they will say something that doesn't expose their sin, or embarass them, or limit their "freedom". Arguing with them has been the pleasure of my self, for the sake of the gospel. My most recent thread coherent puts Evolution in context as a work in progress, not an evolution of man, and that is where it will stay.

You want to argue with that, try arguing that even though there is no internal competition among Evolution's memes, any one of them could beat Creation because Creation depends on God (and God can't be proven) (you will have a hard time explaining why dependency alone creates a flaw, but if you want to argue try that).

Does that answer your question sufficiently?

 

[Delphiki]

Wow. What?

 

[dickyh995]

Um...What? No wonder your OPs generally don't make any sense.

 

[Old Ned]

Does that answer your question sufficiently?

Of course, I asked for what knowledge you have.

Thank you for taking the time to answer me Gotts.

I will respond to your post in more detail when I have more time, work beckons, another day on roofs in the snow

 

[Delphiki]

Of course, I asked for what knowledge you have.

Thank you for taking the time to answer me Gotts.

I will respond to your post in more detail when I have more time, work beckons, another day on roofs in the snow

Good luck and godspeed (no pun intended).

 

[RealityCheck]

Well that explained pretty much everything gotts has posted about evolution. Little bits of partially correct ideas mixed in with huge loads of misinformation.

Unfortunately, gotts has to be willing to learn what's wrong with what he thinks he knows if youre going to make any progress. If he's determined to stick with his misunderstanding then youre wasting time.

 

[AV1611VET]

Well that explained pretty much everything gotts has posted about evolution. Little bits of partially correct ideas mixed in with huge loads of misinformation.

Unfortunately, gotts has to be willing to learn what's wrong with what he thinks he knows if youre going to make any progress. If he's determined to stick with his misunderstanding then youre wasting time.

I'm thankful Jesus doesn't require us to know all this technostuff in order to get saved.

Instead, a little child should be able to accept Jesus Christ as his/her Saviour.

Science can take a hike.