Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
The "critical thinker" would rapidly conclude that the notion that the moon landings were faked is, frankly, laughably implausible.It would only "speak volumes" to an uncritical thinker who doesn't know the difference between hearsay and evaluation of proposed hypotheses and subsequent theory.
This is baseless rhetoric. Finding an outcropping of fossils will not yield any data but inanimate objects. Finding inanimate objects does nothing. Am I to presume you've done nothing in the way of verification of that theory you accept?
My reasoning for not becoming involved with testing of the Theory of Evolution is: I do not care whether it is true or not, and its veracity has no meaning to me. Therefore there is no reason for me to engage in meaningless pursuits yielding empty theory.
You are confusing the Theory of Evolution with the fact. The original post is clearly speaking of the theory. I presume you understand the difference? The fact of evolution is summarily: things change. This is axiomatic and not in any way, shape or form a scientific theory. Facts are datum.
Physics is a description of facts. You don't understand the difference between theory and fact. Why have you suddenly abandoned the Theory of Evolution in this discussion?
Hearsay is witness apart from observation. What do you think it is?
The "critical thinker" would rapidly conclude that the notion that the moon landings were faked is, frankly, laughably implausible.
I under the basic concept of 'survival of the fittest' and the basic concept of 'change of alleles over time'. I'm sort of familiar with genes and chromosomes. Some the genes and chromosomes I used to know has been changed since high school.TBDude65 said:1) Figure out what people do and don't understand about the Theory of Evolution (what they accept as true vs what they don't accept)
Hmmm. I'm not really into biology. I have read the textbooks available in high school. (The dinosaurs were very sick by that time.) I tend to read the occasional releases of discoveries in the various news sources on line. I try to find the source documents rather than the stuff glopped together by a 'journalist' who doesn't know how to capitalize and concentrates on whatever sensational headline can be ginned up to sell space.TBDude65 said:2) Figure out what information people commonly use as source material for their views on evolution.
In my case, it's not so much I don't accept the theory, I don't accept the conclusions of some interested parties.TBDude65 said:So, for people who do not accept evolution (or who posit some additional supernatural element to it, like adding a creator/designer that "guides" or "directs" evolution), what is it about the Theory of Evolution you do not accept and why?
Already answered, I trust.TBDude65 said:In addition to this, what resources do you (or have you) explored with respect to the science? (books, journals, classes, degrees, blogs, news sites, etc).
"...sources people choose..."? Which people?TBDude65 said:In addition to the latter question, what do you think the reliability is of the sources people choose?
Sources vary. There are rather wild-eyed sorts on the extreme edges of both sides. I've read any number of 'items' from the YEC groups citing wild claims, un-corroborated by paleontology or the Bible. I've also read about the same number of 'items' from the no-god groups using Unidentified Flying Objects and alien civilizations to substantiate their claims.TBDude65 said:Are all sources equal?
That is the problem, isn't it?TBDude65 said:Are only sources that agree with your opinion reliable?
Obviously, the one that agrees with me is the well researched, intellectual and reliable source. [He breathes on his nails, then buffs them.]TBDude65 said:What makes one source better than another source?
You could not be more wrong. In fact you rely on the work of paleontologists every day. And you might as well say that a murder cannot be solved by using DNA since that is an inanimate object.
If that is the case why are you even debating it?
If you don't care to learn how scientists know that it is correct your are in no position to be opposing it.
No, I am not. Theories explain facts. Evolution has been observed in many different ways and the theory of evolution explains that fact. And evolution is much more than your empty summary.
Close enough. Then by that standard the Moon landing is not hearsay.
If we stopped at simply finding DNA then it would be useless in an investigation. DNA must be analyzed in order to be of use. You proposed nothing but finding fossils, which would be no different than finding DNA. Neither would yield any meaningful information in regards to evaluation of a proposed hypothesis unless then analyzed according to procedural analysis.
It's cold outside, and I'm bored.
I'm not opposing it; I am not accepting it. The original question was, do I accept it? If not, why not? I have answered the questions.
The Theory of Evolution does not in any way explain the fact of evolution. If you think it does, then explain.
Coming from him it is hearsay. And hearsay of the red herring type, at that; an attempt to divert attention from the topic at hand.
That is correct, DNA is only one tool of a murder investigation. In the same way there are many different scientific tools that demonstrate the fact that we are the product of evolution. I gave you fossils as one simple method that you could use to test the theory. There are many others, but you would need some scientific training to be able to do them. Biologists consider DNA the strongest evidence for evolution right now. But I am not going to be able to instruct you on how to do that in a forum.
How cold? Just some personal bias. I grew up in Minnesota when it used to get down to -20 without windchill every winter.
Now you are demanding an internet education that I am not ready to give. I could find links for your to investigate, but I am not ready to give a proper answer in just a few short posts.
Only if he refused to support it. And the question was there to judge a person's character. It was not a red herring. If a person is willing to deny something that obvious and that recent then there is no hope to get that person to accept even simple science.
Like it or not denying evolution is on the same order as denying gravity.
HI SZ,
You responded:
Well, I respectfully disagree. I can see gravity working every day. I can drop a ball from my hand and it falls to the earth. We call that gravity.
Although I may not have a clear understanding of what actually 'makes' the ball fall to the earth and not float off to my left or right or over my head, I do know that the principle can be shown in thousands of ways each and every day.
I cannot so witness evolution. I can surmise from various evidences of similarity of structure that something may have evolved from something else, but I can't actually see the principle at work physically before my eyes.
Of course, I can also look at the many similarities of structure and also surmise that when God created all the living creatures, He did so in maybe the same way that GM has made cars in the past. GM used to have quite a line up of various models under various brands. However, many of those various models start with the exact same platform of foundation that many other models start with. Then they change the nameplate, add a few different bells and whistles and it becomes another model.
Many creatures that God created are like many others and so I should expect to see some similar physical structure.
So, you can certainly believe that denying evolution is akin to denying gravity, but you're not selling that 'magic elixir' here. It certainly sounds good rolling off the tongue and to those whom God calls fools, I'm sure it makes perfectly logical sense.
God bless you,
In Christ, ted
No, physics is a set of theoretical models that explain facts. As is evolutionary biology.
Some physics models we can test in the lab and some we can't. In either case, we test physics models by comparing their predictions to repeatable observations. In the case of evolution, by contrast, we test the theoretical model by comparing predictions to repeatable observations. I don't see the difference.We can test physics models in a laboratory under repetition and such processes designed to filter out bias and incompetency; tests that can be reproduced and such.
To the extent that I can know anything, I can know whether common descent is true or not by the same kinds of reasoning that I use to determine the truth of other things in life.In the end, I don't know, and neither do you or anyone else. The only difference is, you may pretend that you know, and may appeal to authority alone: I don't and won't. Most of this stuff comes down to peer-pressure,
Some physics models we can test in the lab and some we can't. In either case, we test physics models by comparing their predictions to repeatable observations. In the case of evolution, by contrast, we test the theoretical model by comparing predictions to repeatable observations. I don't see the difference.
To the extent that I can know anything, I can know whether common descent is true or not by the same kinds of reasoning that I use to determine the truth of other things in life.
Physics happens in the present and physics happens in the past. Observing a supernova that happened 150,000 years ago is just as much a part of physics as banging protons together at CERN.The difference is that physics happens in the present and can be tested in the present under common experience.
Close enough to the same meaning, yes.When you say "I can know whether common descent is true" are you meaning the same by "know" as "I can know that a magnet attracts iron"? I just want to be clear on what you mean by "know" before I respond to this statement.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?