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
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 #51

Post by Diagoras »

To return to the OP:

[Replying to Eloi in post #1]
Eloi wrote:Evolutionary theory holds that as animals progressed up the evolutionary scale, they became more capable of surviving.
Important to recognise that every plant and animal in existence today has ‘progressed’ to the same degree by virtue of their ancestors’ survival. There’s no such thing as a ‘lesser’ animal, evolutionarily speaking. Today’s bacteria have evolved to survive in conditions that the bacteria of forty thousand years ago would perish in.

For species who inhabit very stable environments, the amount of evolutionary change may be very small (e.g. the coelacanth), while other species exhibit a greater degree of change in a short space of time.

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 #52

Post by The Barbarian »

Inquirer wrote: Thu Jul 28, 2022 12:01 pm Where did you read that man was given a "soul" that animals were not also given?
Genesis 2:7 And the Lord God formed man of the slime of the earth: and breathed into his face the breath of life, and man became a living soul.

That's not what God said about other animals. Those, He says, were brought forth by the earth, but He does not say that he breathed into them a living soul.

I just explained to you that the word "soul" in some English translations is from the Hebrew "nephesh" and the Bible does not reserve that term exclusively for people Barbarian, go and check, do some research, accuracy is important.
[/quote]

So we shouldn't assume something not within scripture. My point precisely. It's not that animals lack souls; it's that God gives us an immortal soul directly.

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 #53

Post by Inquirer »

The Barbarian wrote: Sat Jul 30, 2022 10:33 am
Inquirer wrote: Thu Jul 28, 2022 12:01 pm Where did you read that man was given a "soul" that animals were not also given?
Genesis 2:7 And the Lord God formed man of the slime of the earth: and breathed into his face the breath of life, and man became a living soul.

That's not what God said about other animals. Those, He says, were brought forth by the earth, but He does not say that he breathed into them a living soul.

I just explained to you that the word "soul" in some English translations is from the Hebrew "nephesh" and the Bible does not reserve that term exclusively for people Barbarian, go and check, do some research, accuracy is important.
So we shouldn't assume something not within scripture. My point precisely. It's not that animals lack souls; it's that God gives us an immortal soul directly.
[/quote]

Very well, you have your interpretation I suppose like most people.

User avatar
Clownboat
Savant
Posts: 9340
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:42 pm
Has thanked: 882 times
Been thanked: 1240 times

Re: Scientific thinking and common sense

Post #54

Post by Clownboat »

Clownboat wrote:Is there a better mechanism over the scientific method for humans to gain understanding?
Inquirer wrote: Thu Jul 28, 2022 11:58 am Yes, study and heed God's word.
I have read the book that you call a god's word and have not found it to be impressive nor to relay any knowledge that ancient humans wouldn't have had already.
It reveals knowledge that is undiscoverable scientifically.
Can you provide examples where God's word has increased our understanding of the world? Specifically where science couldn't, but holy books did?
Will your examples show that studying and heeding a god's word has better results when compared to the scientific method?

Readers, imagine a world where our religious books inform us in place off scientific discovery.
Clownboat wrote: Wed Jul 27, 2022 11:40 am It seems you have a problem with using the best method we have and would prefer to go with what is supplied in a religious holy book. Is this a common sense approach?
Yes.
To clarify, does this include all religious holy books or is there a specific few that we should use in place of using the scientific method?
Clownboat wrote: Wed Jul 27, 2022 11:40 am To test for common sense:
Did a snake/serpent literally talk?
Did a donkey literally talk?
Did a man literally live in the belly of a whale/fish for days?
Were god human hybrids (Nephilim) literal?
Did Adam literally live 930 years?
Did the Nile literally turn to blood?
Did Israelites literally wander the desert for 40 years after the Exodus?
Can a man without testicles literally not enter the house of the lord?
Should we literally stone homosexuals to death?

The Bible as literal is no longer tenable which is why churches are modifying their beliefs. Some are changing, others will die off. No worries though, I would imagine the Christianithy we have today is nothing like the Christianity from 2,000 years ago.
Does that Bible claim that it contains "literal" truth? it does not, so where did you get this idea from?
Please copy/paste which idea of mine you are referring to.

As any capable reader will see, I was testing biblical claims for common sense. You inject 'truth' claims as a dodge so you can pretend we don't see the lack of common sense in many claims made in your preferred holy book.
You can give a man a fish and he will be fed for a day, or you can teach a man to pray for fish and he will starve to death.

I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible beings wrath. - KenRU

It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco

If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb

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 #55

Post by Inquirer »

Clownboat wrote: Tue Aug 02, 2022 1:49 pm
Clownboat wrote:Is there a better mechanism over the scientific method for humans to gain understanding?
Inquirer wrote: Thu Jul 28, 2022 11:58 am Yes, study and heed God's word.
I have read the book that you call a god's word and have not found it to be impressive nor to relay any knowledge that ancient humans wouldn't have had already.
It reveals knowledge that is undiscoverable scientifically.
Can you provide examples where God's word has increased our understanding of the world? Specifically where science couldn't, but holy books did?
Will your examples show that studying and heeding a god's word has better results when compared to the scientific method?
The Bible is like a jigsaw puzzle, a rich source of information but hard to perceive when we only see a few pieces. That it can be puzzling or confusing is a reflection of how we are interpreting what is written, it is always us that is at fault never the Bible.

There are many verses that increase our understanding and that can never be discovered by science:
The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, and knowledge of the Holy One is understanding.
(The above is telling us directly that definition of UNDERSTANDING is in fact knowledge of God, nothing else really is understanding).
Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use?
(The above is telling us that God has reasons for doing things that we might perceive as having no reason).
I am the Lord, and there is no other; apart from me there is no God.
(The above is telling us that apart from God, there is no source of knowledge, no understanding).
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(This is profound knowledge, not even the Israelites were given this).

All of these and more are revealed to us, otherwise undiscoverable by us. The Pharisees and Jews of old had no idea there was a "Father" it was revealed (and of course what was revealed was at variance with what they already believed so hostility then violence then torture then murder to he who revealed this, was their reaction).
Clownboat wrote: Tue Aug 02, 2022 1:49 pm Readers, imagine a world where our religious books inform us in place off scientific discovery.
Clownboat wrote: Wed Jul 27, 2022 11:40 am It seems you have a problem with using the best method we have and would prefer to go with what is supplied in a religious holy book. Is this a common sense approach?
Yes.
To clarify, does this include all religious holy books or is there a specific few that we should use in place of using the scientific method?
Clownboat wrote: Wed Jul 27, 2022 11:40 am To test for common sense:
Did a snake/serpent literally talk?
Did a donkey literally talk?
Did a man literally live in the belly of a whale/fish for days?
Were god human hybrids (Nephilim) literal?
Did Adam literally live 930 years?
Did the Nile literally turn to blood?
Did Israelites literally wander the desert for 40 years after the Exodus?
Can a man without testicles literally not enter the house of the lord?
Should we literally stone homosexuals to death?

The Bible as literal is no longer tenable which is why churches are modifying their beliefs. Some are changing, others will die off. No worries though, I would imagine the Christianithy we have today is nothing like the Christianity from 2,000 years ago.
Does that Bible claim that it contains "literal" truth? it does not, so where did you get this idea from?
Please copy/paste which idea of mine you are referring to.

As any capable reader will see, I was testing biblical claims for common sense. You inject 'truth' claims as a dodge so you can pretend we don't see the lack of common sense in many claims made in your preferred holy book.
People do not like truth, they do not want to be told things that clash with their existing God - which is in fact their own ego.

User avatar
JoeyKnothead
Banned
Banned
Posts: 20879
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
Location: Here
Has thanked: 4093 times
Been thanked: 2572 times

Re: Scientific thinking and common sense

Post #56

Post by JoeyKnothead »

Inquirer wrote: Tue Aug 02, 2022 3:14 pm People do not like truth, they do not want to be told things that clash with their existing God - which is in fact their own ego.
Can't show a god exists (nor so many biblical claims), accuses folks of not liking Truth(tm), blames it on their ego.

Projection must be a Christian rite of passage.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin

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 #57

Post by Diagoras »

Inquirer wrote: Tue Aug 02, 2022 3:14 pm The Bible is like a jigsaw puzzle, a rich source of information but hard to perceive when we only see a few pieces. That it can be puzzling or confusing is a reflection of how we are interpreting what is written, it is always us that is at fault never the Bible.
I had to remind myself which forum this thread was in when I read that. Surely a basic premise of scientific thinking is to constantly question and test what we know? To decide that the Bible is ‘never at fault’ goes against that principle.
There are many verses that increase our understanding and that can never be discovered by science:

<snip>
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(This is profound knowledge, not even the Israelites were given this).
<bolding mine>

In what way is this ‘profound’?

User avatar
JoeyKnothead
Banned
Banned
Posts: 20879
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
Location: Here
Has thanked: 4093 times
Been thanked: 2572 times

Re: Scientific thinking and common sense

Post #58

Post by JoeyKnothead »

Diagoras wrote: Mon Aug 08, 2022 11:27 pm
Inquirer wrote: Tue Aug 02, 2022 3:14 pm
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(This is profound knowledge, not even the Israelites were given this).
<bolding mine>

In what way is this ‘profound’?
Oh, don't be silly, it says "God" right there.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin

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 #59

Post by Inquirer »

Diagoras wrote: Mon Aug 08, 2022 11:27 pm
Inquirer wrote: Tue Aug 02, 2022 3:14 pm The Bible is like a jigsaw puzzle, a rich source of information but hard to perceive when we only see a few pieces. That it can be puzzling or confusing is a reflection of how we are interpreting what is written, it is always us that is at fault never the Bible.
I had to remind myself which forum this thread was in when I read that. Surely a basic premise of scientific thinking is to constantly question and test what we know? To decide that the Bible is ‘never at fault’ goes against that principle.
There are many verses that increase our understanding and that can never be discovered by science:

<snip>
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(This is profound knowledge, not even the Israelites were given this).
<bolding mine>

In what way is this ‘profound’?
It predates the foundation of the universe, it tells us that "the word" is the being that created the universe, it tells us that when he visited his creation in the flesh, in material form, he was killed by those he created and much much more.

User avatar
JoeyKnothead
Banned
Banned
Posts: 20879
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
Location: Here
Has thanked: 4093 times
Been thanked: 2572 times

Re: Scientific thinking and common sense

Post #60

Post by JoeyKnothead »

Inquirer wrote: Tue Aug 09, 2022 2:37 pm
Diagoras wrote: Mon Aug 08, 2022 11:27 pm
Inquirer wrote: Tue Aug 02, 2022 3:14 pm The Bible is like a jigsaw puzzle, a rich source of information but hard to perceive when we only see a few pieces. That it can be puzzling or confusing is a reflection of how we are interpreting what is written, it is always us that is at fault never the Bible.
I had to remind myself which forum this thread was in when I read that. Surely a basic premise of scientific thinking is to constantly question and test what we know? To decide that the Bible is ‘never at fault’ goes against that principle.
There are many verses that increase our understanding and that can never be discovered by science:

<snip>
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(This is profound knowledge, not even the Israelites were given this).
<bolding mine>

In what way is this ‘profound’?
It predates the foundation of the universe, it tells us that "the word" is the being that created the universe, it tells us that when he visited his creation in the flesh, in material form, he was killed by those he created and much much more.
I bet you have the cleanest hogs around.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin

Post Reply