I Believe We Were Created: Change My Mind
The basics. Start simple, from the top. Don't preach. My first question is, what is the scientific method?
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
AkioTsukino · M
@redredred It's those sorts of leaps to a desired conclusion that has always bothered me about the arrogance of evolution. Even when I was an unbeliever being spoon-fed the nonsense in state sponsored propaganda
It's like the silly watchmaker analogy. Just as the primitive wouldn't likely leap to the conclusion that a watch was something that had been made to match the believer's presupposition, neither is it convincing that a perceived flaw in the creator's design would match yours.
Maybe the primitive finding the watch would think it was a precious stone. Maybe the spine is a demonstration that our creator designed us to be back surgeons.
As silly as that sounds is how silly I think some apologetic and evolutionary arguments are.
It's like the silly watchmaker analogy. Just as the primitive wouldn't likely leap to the conclusion that a watch was something that had been made to match the believer's presupposition, neither is it convincing that a perceived flaw in the creator's design would match yours.
Maybe the primitive finding the watch would think it was a precious stone. Maybe the spine is a demonstration that our creator designed us to be back surgeons.
As silly as that sounds is how silly I think some apologetic and evolutionary arguments are.
AkioTsukino · M
@redredred [quote]I’m sorry but that’s just stupid. I wish I had a kinder word but only stupidity explains your response.[/quote]
No need for apologies, I prefer you to be honest and straight forward.
[quote]You are right, it sounds silly[/quote]
It was meant to. Perhaps I overdid it? I'm determining if you "believe" in evolution because of a sociopolitical frustration with theocracy or you started out with an honest examination of truth without preconceived notions.
To me, the idea of someone "believing" in evolution is as nonsensical as you [b][u]may[/u][/b] think creation is. We all have preconceived notions, biases, etc. but the question is, well, the questions are does that effect our thinking and is there some reason we are mislead to a particular conclusion. Obviously. It isn't profound, its simple.
People are idiots. I'm a person.
No need for apologies, I prefer you to be honest and straight forward.
[quote]You are right, it sounds silly[/quote]
It was meant to. Perhaps I overdid it? I'm determining if you "believe" in evolution because of a sociopolitical frustration with theocracy or you started out with an honest examination of truth without preconceived notions.
To me, the idea of someone "believing" in evolution is as nonsensical as you [b][u]may[/u][/b] think creation is. We all have preconceived notions, biases, etc. but the question is, well, the questions are does that effect our thinking and is there some reason we are mislead to a particular conclusion. Obviously. It isn't profound, its simple.
People are idiots. I'm a person.
redredred · M
@AkioTsukino I believe in evolution because genetic science demonstrates its factual truth. Endogenous retroviruses demonstrate unequivocally that humans and chimps had a common ancestor species that was neither chimp nor human. It’s not an opinion, it’s a demonstrable fact. It doesn’t depend on anyone’s sociopolitical attitude.
AkioTsukino · M
@redredred [quote]I believe in evolution because genetic science demonstrates its factual truth. Endogenous retroviruses demonstrate unequivocally that humans and chimps had a common ancestor species that was neither chimp nor human. It’s not an opinion, it’s a demonstrable fact. It doesn’t depend on anyone’s sociopolitical attitude.
[/quote]
That sounds defensive. Unreasonable.
What was that ancestor. Show me how you personally used the scientific method to determine that humans and chimps had a common ancestor, what that ancestor was, and how the process took place. Because I could just as blindly come to the conclusion that the same "demonstrable fact" is creation. Unless you can do that it is your opinion and it is most likely sociopolitical.
[/quote]
That sounds defensive. Unreasonable.
What was that ancestor. Show me how you personally used the scientific method to determine that humans and chimps had a common ancestor, what that ancestor was, and how the process took place. Because I could just as blindly come to the conclusion that the same "demonstrable fact" is creation. Unless you can do that it is your opinion and it is most likely sociopolitical.
redredred · M
@AkioTsukino My daughter is a geneticist. She has explained it to my satisfaction. I approached this learning without the knee jerk objectionist attitude you’re demonstrating.
I have no interest in educating an unwilling student. You have the facts I have. If you don’t choose to accept them no one has any need for further evidence of your volitional ignorance.
I have no interest in educating an unwilling student. You have the facts I have. If you don’t choose to accept them no one has any need for further evidence of your volitional ignorance.
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@AkioTsukino [quote]humans and chimps had a common ancestor[/quote]
I did that with the genetic evidence I have offered you, yet you you ignored it, and offered no comment
Why is that?
I did that with the genetic evidence I have offered you, yet you you ignored it, and offered no comment
Why is that?
AbbySvenz · F
That’s the thing about the scientific method— I don’t have to personally conduct the experiment myself because other scientists have already done that. That’s called peer review: other scientists conduct the same experiment under the same conditions to see if they get the same predicted results.
And since the science textbooks haven’t been revised, it’s a pretty good bet that the current theory hasn’t been overturned. 🤷♀️@AkioTsukino
And since the science textbooks haven’t been revised, it’s a pretty good bet that the current theory hasn’t been overturned. 🤷♀️@AkioTsukino
AkioTsukino · M
@AbbySvenz [quote]And since the science textbooks haven’t been revised, it’s a pretty good bet that the current theory hasn’t been overturned. 🤷♀️@SemmelweisReflex[/quote]
The theory of evolution that I was taught in the 1980s is not by any means the evolution today just as the evolution of today isn't going to be the evolution of 20 years from now. Science is always wrong. There's nothing wrong with that. In fact it is a good thing. I like very much being wrong. It means I'm learning.
Estimation of the age and size of the universe has changed dramatically over time. Pluto has changed from a planet to a dwarf planet in 2006.
The theory of evolution that I was taught in the 1980s is not by any means the evolution today just as the evolution of today isn't going to be the evolution of 20 years from now. Science is always wrong. There's nothing wrong with that. In fact it is a good thing. I like very much being wrong. It means I'm learning.
Estimation of the age and size of the universe has changed dramatically over time. Pluto has changed from a planet to a dwarf planet in 2006.
AbbySvenz · F
And you can bet that the theory of evolution that you learned is not in the textbooks in today’s classrooms.
AkioTsukino · M
@AbbySvenz
Earlier
[quote]And since the science textbooks haven’t been revised, it’s a pretty good bet that the current theory hasn’t been overturned[/quote]
Now
[quote]And you can bet that the theory of evolution that you learned is not in the textbooks in today’s classrooms.[/quote]
Earlier
[quote]And since the science textbooks haven’t been revised, it’s a pretty good bet that the current theory hasn’t been overturned[/quote]
Now
[quote]And you can bet that the theory of evolution that you learned is not in the textbooks in today’s classrooms.[/quote]
AbbySvenz · F
Theory overturned is different than theory refined.@AkioTsukino
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@AkioTsukino I notice you still haven’t addressed the genetic evidence I offered you... in fact, you ignored it, and offered no comment
Why is that?
Would you like some more?
Would that be helpful?
Why is that?
Would you like some more?
Would that be helpful?
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@AkioTsukino The process we call evolution has never changed .
It is change in the distribution and frequency of alleles.
That’s it. That’s evolution. It’s a [b]process[/b], and here on Earth that process has been going on for 3.5 billion years
The Ancient Greeks discussed that process, but lacked the sharpness of definition that we enjoy today.
They also lacked a mechanism for evolution.
Darwin’s magnificent contribution was to identify the [b]mechanism[/b] that drives the process. He called that mechanism Natural Selection.
it’s sex and death within constantly changing environments.
Together, they form the [b]Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection[/b]
Would you like me to give you some of the evidence from which the Theory is drawn, and to discuss how the Theory consistently, completely, and coherently, explains that evidence?
No?
Hmm... I thought not
It is change in the distribution and frequency of alleles.
That’s it. That’s evolution. It’s a [b]process[/b], and here on Earth that process has been going on for 3.5 billion years
The Ancient Greeks discussed that process, but lacked the sharpness of definition that we enjoy today.
They also lacked a mechanism for evolution.
Darwin’s magnificent contribution was to identify the [b]mechanism[/b] that drives the process. He called that mechanism Natural Selection.
it’s sex and death within constantly changing environments.
Together, they form the [b]Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection[/b]
Would you like me to give you some of the evidence from which the Theory is drawn, and to discuss how the Theory consistently, completely, and coherently, explains that evidence?
No?
Hmm... I thought not
AkioTsukino · M
@newjaninev2 I care not one whit about evolution
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@AkioTsukino and yet you talk about ‘evolution versus creationism'.
Am I to take it that approach no longer interests you?
Am I to take it that approach no longer interests you?
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@newjaninev2 [b]Am I to take it that approach no longer interests you?[/b]
AkioTsukino · M
@newjaninev2 As I explained at the start, it never did interest me. Discourse is a give and take. I wanted a change of pace and thought it only fair to hear you (collective) out. That hasn't changed, but as I also explained from the start, my time is now more limited.