Scientific thinking and common sense

Creationism, Evolution, and other science issues

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
Eloi
Banned
Banned
Posts: 1775
Joined: Wed Aug 07, 2019 9:31 pm
Has thanked: 43 times
Been thanked: 213 times
Contact:

Scientific thinking and common sense

Post #1

Post by Eloi »

I have noticed that sometimes people with a scientific mind, people who have studied a lot and know a lot of information about different sciences, do not notice simple things that do not escape the attention of ordinary people, even if they have studied less or almost nothing.

For example, the fact that the animals that evolutionists call "lower" in the evolutionary scale still live alongside humans, and that others supposedly fitter, because they are located in a higher position in the evolutionary line of man, no longer exist.

Evolutionary theory holds that as animals progressed up the evolutionary scale, they became more capable of surviving. Why, then, is the “inferior” ape family still in existence, but not a single one of the presumed intermediate forms, which were supposed to be more advanced in evolution? Today we see chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans, but no “ape-men.” Does it seem likely that every one of the more recent and supposedly more advanced “links” between apelike creatures and modern man should have become extinct, but not the lower apes? https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1101985017

To what extent do you think the "wisdom" of this system of things can cloud a person's mind?

User avatar
The Barbarian
Sage
Posts: 876
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2021 8:40 pm
Has thanked: 204 times
Been thanked: 586 times

Re: Scientific thinking and common sense

Post #21

Post by The Barbarian »

Tcg wrote: Mon May 30, 2022 5:41 pm The quote at the top of this post which is attributed to me is actually from Eloi.
So it is. Sorry.

User avatar
The Barbarian
Sage
Posts: 876
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2021 8:40 pm
Has thanked: 204 times
Been thanked: 586 times

Re: Scientific thinking and common sense

Post #22

Post by The Barbarian »

Eloi wrote: Mon May 30, 2022 6:28 pm The Piltdown Man fraud significantly affected early research on human evolution.[38] Notably, it led scientists down a blind alley in the belief that the human brain expanded in size before the jaw adapted to new types of food. Discoveries of Australopithecine fossils such as the Taung child found by Raymond Dart during the 1920s in South Africa were ignored because of the support for Piltdown Man as "the missing link," and the reconstruction of human evolution was confused for decades. The examination and debate over Piltdown Man caused a vast expenditure of time and effort on the fossil, with an estimated 250+ papers


Yep. It was a huge embarrassment until Darwinian biologists finally and definitively proved it was a fake. As you suggest, it was contrary to evolutionary theory and exactly the opposite of what evidence actually exists. Ultimately, the theory won. That's the nature of theories. (remember what a theory is, in science)

Eloi
Banned
Banned
Posts: 1775
Joined: Wed Aug 07, 2019 9:31 pm
Has thanked: 43 times
Been thanked: 213 times
Contact:

Re: Scientific thinking and common sense

Post #23

Post by Eloi »

The Barbarian wrote: Tue May 31, 2022 8:41 am
Eloi wrote: Mon May 30, 2022 6:28 pm The Piltdown Man fraud significantly affected early research on human evolution.[38] Notably, it led scientists down a blind alley in the belief that the human brain expanded in size before the jaw adapted to new types of food. Discoveries of Australopithecine fossils such as the Taung child found by Raymond Dart during the 1920s in South Africa were ignored because of the support for Piltdown Man as "the missing link," and the reconstruction of human evolution was confused for decades. The examination and debate over Piltdown Man caused a vast expenditure of time and effort on the fossil, with an estimated 250+ papers
Yep. It was a huge embarrassment until Darwinian biologists finally and definitively proved it was a fake. As you suggest, it was contrary to evolutionary theory and exactly the opposite of what evidence actually exists. Ultimately, the theory won. That's the nature of theories. (remember what a theory is, in science)
The underlined is mine.

I DO NOT SUGGEST A THING. My post was an info from Wikipedia about the influence that this hoax had in the theory of evolution. I quoted that information (so easily accessible) because evolutionists everywhere have tried to underestimate the reality in this regard.

The fact is that the lie was believed and used by the evolutionists of the world, and it affected the whole theory in general, because objectivity fails when there is an agenda involved. You can't build a cardboard skyscraper on quicksand ground ... sooner or later it falls off.

Non-evolutionist believers know that God made each animal (and plant) according to its kind, because the Scripture (which we consider information that God wanted to give us) says so, not because we have invented a theory that we have to adhere to by commitment or obligation. Evolutionists cling to a theory that they themselves have created... based on what?

If the basis of that theory were objective, there would be no scientist who would not accept the theory.

User avatar
Jose Fly
Guru
Posts: 1462
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2022 5:30 pm
Location: Out west somewhere
Has thanked: 337 times
Been thanked: 906 times

Re: Scientific thinking and common sense

Post #24

Post by Jose Fly »

Eloi wrote: Tue May 31, 2022 12:51 pm objectivity fails when there is an agenda involved. You can't build a cardboard skyscraper on quicksand ground ... sooner or later it falls off.
So what then do we say about the litany of failed "end times" predictions by Jehovah's Witness? Or the sexual abuse scandals and cover ups?

If your point is that we should evaluate the validity of an idea by looking at the behaviors of its adherents, shouldn't we also apply that to Christianity?

Or are you employing a double standard here?
Evolutionists cling to a theory that they themselves have created... based on what?
The observed reality that populations evolve.
If the basis of that theory were objective, there would be no scientist who would not accept the theory.
If the basis for Christianity were objective, there would be no theologian who would not believe it. See how silly that sounds?
Being apathetic is great....or not. I don't really care.

User avatar
The Barbarian
Sage
Posts: 876
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2021 8:40 pm
Has thanked: 204 times
Been thanked: 586 times

Re: Scientific thinking and common sense

Post #25

Post by The Barbarian »

Eloi wrote: Tue May 31, 2022 12:51 pm
The Barbarian wrote: Tue May 31, 2022 8:41 am
Eloi wrote: Mon May 30, 2022 6:28 pm The Piltdown Man fraud significantly affected early research on human evolution.[38] Notably, it led scientists down a blind alley in the belief that the human brain expanded in size before the jaw adapted to new types of food. Discoveries of Australopithecine fossils such as the Taung child found by Raymond Dart during the 1920s in South Africa were ignored because of the support for Piltdown Man as "the missing link," and the reconstruction of human evolution was confused for decades. The examination and debate over Piltdown Man caused a vast expenditure of time and effort on the fossil, with an estimated 250+ papers
Yep. It was a huge embarrassment until Darwinian biologists finally and definitively proved it was a fake. As you suggest, it was contrary to evolutionary theory and exactly the opposite of what evidence actually exists. Ultimately, the theory won. That's the nature of theories. (remember what a theory is, in science)
The underlined is mine.

I DO NOT SUGGEST A THING.
Probably a bad idea to present assertions you don't like, then.
My post was an info from Wikipedia about the influence that this hoax had in the theory of evolution.
As you learned, it was a huge embarrassment to biology, because it was contrary to the predictions of evolutionary theory. So scientists breathed a sigh of relief when some Darwinists debunked the hoax.
The fact is that the lie was believed and used by the evolutionists of the world, and it affected the whole theory in general
Nope. For the reasons I showed you. It just didn't fit the theory. And so it remained problematical until evolutionists showed that it was a hoax.
Non-evolutionist believers know that God made each animal (and plant) according to its kind
Evolutionists know this also. The difference is, non-evolutionists don't approve of the way He did it.
Evolutionists cling to a theory that they themselves have created... based on what?
Facts. Verified predictions of Darwin's theory. Piltdown Man debunking, for example. It was largely because it was so contrary to the theory, that people took the time to verify it was a fraud. Much later, when we started finding fossil hominids, they were, as Darwin's theory predicted, in Africa, and with human-like postcranial features and apelike crania.

That kind of thing. There's a great deal more verified predictions. Would you like to learn about more of them?
If the basis of that theory were objective, there would be no scientist who would not accept the theory.
Last time I checked, comparing the Discovery Institute's list of "scientists who doubt Darwin" and "Project Steve", about 0.3 percent of scientists with doctorates in biology or a related field, don't accept evolutionary theory. That's not 3%; it's 0.3%. All of the "doubters" as far as I've been able to determine, have done so for religious reasons. Pretty conclusive, no?

User avatar
Diagoras
Guru
Posts: 1392
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2019 12:47 am
Has thanked: 170 times
Been thanked: 579 times

Re: Scientific thinking and common sense

Post #26

Post by Diagoras »

Eloi wrote: Tue May 31, 2022 12:51 pm Non-evolutionist believers know that God made each animal (and plant) according to its kind, because the Scripture (which we consider information that God wanted to give us) says so, not because we have invented a theory that we have to adhere to by commitment or obligation.
<bolding mine>

Upon what basis can we ‘consider’ this information to be reliable?

Should we commit to defending the Bible from those who argue that it is the work of men, not of a god?

User avatar
Inquirer
Banned
Banned
Posts: 1012
Joined: Tue May 31, 2022 6:03 pm
Has thanked: 23 times
Been thanked: 30 times

Re: Scientific thinking and common sense

Post #27

Post by Inquirer »

Diagoras wrote: Wed Jul 20, 2022 12:28 am
Eloi wrote: Tue May 31, 2022 12:51 pm Non-evolutionist believers know that God made each animal (and plant) according to its kind, because the Scripture (which we consider information that God wanted to give us) says so, not because we have invented a theory that we have to adhere to by commitment or obligation.
<bolding mine>

Upon what basis can we ‘consider’ this information to be reliable?

Should we commit to defending the Bible from those who argue that it is the work of men, not of a god?
These are philosophical questions and they are not confined to claims about the Bible either.

Ask Barbarian, he believes in God, he believes God is the creator, why not ask him?

User avatar
The Barbarian
Sage
Posts: 876
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2021 8:40 pm
Has thanked: 204 times
Been thanked: 586 times

Re: Scientific thinking and common sense

Post #28

Post by The Barbarian »

The Barbarian notes that God created each living thing according to its kind As I said, the issue is that most creationists don't approve of the way He did it.

User avatar
Inquirer
Banned
Banned
Posts: 1012
Joined: Tue May 31, 2022 6:03 pm
Has thanked: 23 times
Been thanked: 30 times

Re: Scientific thinking and common sense

Post #29

Post by Inquirer »

The Barbarian wrote: Thu Jul 21, 2022 4:41 pm The Barbarian notes that God created each living thing according to its kind. As I said, the issue is that most creationists don't approve of the way He did it.
Well there are sound reasons for that disapproval Barbarian. Consider:
And so it is written, the first man Adam became a living being (1 Corinthians 15:45).
and
and there was no one to work the ground (Gen 2:5)
and
...the son of Shelah,

the son of Cainan,

the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem,

the son of Noah, the son of Lamech,

the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch,

the son of Jared, the son of Mahalalel,

the son of Kenan, the son of Enosh,

the son of Seth, the son of Adam,

the son of God.
How can Adam (a specimen of Homo Sapiens I am told) be the first if he evolved? He is described as the first, until him there was no one to till the ground, his father was God not another human being, yet he must have had parents, grand parents, great grandparents... if he evolved - please resolve what appears to be a pretty blatant contradiction.

Will you actually believe what God has revealed or will you rely on your own carnal reasoning?
Trust in the LORD with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding (Prov 3:5)
There is a way that appears to be right, but in the end it leads to death. (Prov 13:12)
This is just one reason why some creationists disapprove of these claims about evolution.

User avatar
Diagoras
Guru
Posts: 1392
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2019 12:47 am
Has thanked: 170 times
Been thanked: 579 times

Re: Scientific thinking and common sense

Post #30

Post by Diagoras »

Inquirer wrote: Thu Jul 21, 2022 10:19 am These are philosophical questions and they are not confined to claims about the Bible either.
My question was directed at Eloi and was asked in the spirit of scientific enquiry. What evidence is there (external to the Bible) that shows the Bible to be factually correct about ‘kinds’?

Post Reply