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?
Scientific thinking and common sense
Moderator: Moderators
- 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 #151Oh come on. The gist of those questions is the same....trying to get you to explain how you deal with alleged revelations from gods that are contrary to the revelations you claim to have received.
Are you really this desperate to avoid the question? Hopefully others have noticed that despite your foot-stomping and attempts to divert, one fact remains....you've never answered any of those questions.
Being apathetic is great....or not. I don't really care.
- Inquirer
- 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 #152So now you agree the question was not actually the same but the "gist" (as you see it) is the same.Jose Fly wrote: ↑Sat Aug 13, 2022 1:48 pmOh come on. The gist of those questions is the same....trying to get you to explain how you deal with alleged revelations from gods that are contrary to the revelations you claim to have received.
Are you really this desperate to avoid the question? Hopefully others have noticed that despite your foot-stomping and attempts to divert, one fact remains....you've never answered any of those questions.
You disapprove of an absence of thoroughness when you perceive it in others yet are content with ambiguity, imprecision in your own writings.
Let me ask you what "revelation" do you think I have claimed, then we can look at the "gist" of your questions.
- 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 #153Never mind. I've no interest in chasing yet another creationist around, trying to get them to answer questions. It's a pathology with y'all.Inquirer wrote: ↑Sat Aug 13, 2022 1:54 pm So now you agree the question was not actually the same but the "gist" (as you see it) is the same.
You disapprove of an absence of thoroughness when you perceive it in others yet are content with ambiguity, imprecision in your own writings.
Let me ask you what "revelation" do you think I have claimed, then we can look at the "gist" of your questions.
Being apathetic is great....or not. I don't really care.
- Inquirer
- 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 #154Yes of course, its always someone else's fault isn't it Jose.Jose Fly wrote: ↑Sat Aug 13, 2022 1:58 pmNever mind. I've no interest in chasing yet another creationist around, trying to get them to answer questions. It's a pathology with y'all.Inquirer wrote: ↑Sat Aug 13, 2022 1:54 pm So now you agree the question was not actually the same but the "gist" (as you see it) is the same.
You disapprove of an absence of thoroughness when you perceive it in others yet are content with ambiguity, imprecision in your own writings.
Let me ask you what "revelation" do you think I have claimed, then we can look at the "gist" of your questions.
- brunumb
- Savant
- Posts: 5993
- Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
- Location: Melbourne
- Has thanked: 6607 times
- Been thanked: 3209 times
Re: Scientific thinking and common sense
Post #155Nah. You do your share of the work first. I'm happy with the fact that you have made a claim that something is self-evident without doing anything to establish that your claim is true. Speaks for itself.
Inquirer wrote: ↑Sat Aug 13, 2022 12:59 pmI did indeed explain that, you asked me about this in a different thread a few days ago and I answered here.
Here's a copy of that answer:
My belief in God, a creator, the divinity of scripture is a rational position based upon a huge amount of investigation and fact finding, as a scientist myself I'm well able to undertake such an investigation.
On balance a God, creator with a profound purpose who has revealed information about himself over the centuries and preserved it - unaltered - for fifty centuries, explaining human nature and why our world today is as it is, makes more overall rational sense than the vacuous self referential futile "explanation" claimed by scientism.
This is my position, that all things considered, God makes more sense than inexplicable, vacuous, baseless claims made by atheism.
All you have done is express a load of opinions. Also, there is nothing about how God actually revealed the truth to you. You said the following earlier:
Post by Inquirer » Sat Aug 13, 2022 7:08 am
In fact "God reveals knowledge" is provable but only by God, I can't do what God can. Asking for support is pointless, all I can say is "God has revealed that he is real, to me" and that is that, it won't satisfy you but that's tough, it is still true.
All this really says is that you just convinced yourself that your position is true. Not compelling in the least. Speaking as a scientist, here is my position. All things considered, God makes no sense.
George Orwell:: “The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.”
Voltaire: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
Gender ideology is anti-science, anti truth.
Voltaire: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
Gender ideology is anti-science, anti truth.
- JoeyKnothead
- 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 #156It works to confirm my hypothesis that the god concept is a mechanism that works to deal with difficult, or unanswerable questions. Examples abound within this site alone.Jose Fly wrote: ↑Sat Aug 13, 2022 1:58 pmNever mind. I've no interest in chasing yet another creationist around, trying to get them to answer questions. It's a pathology with y'all.Inquirer wrote: ↑Sat Aug 13, 2022 1:54 pm So now you agree the question was not actually the same but the "gist" (as you see it) is the same.
You disapprove of an absence of thoroughness when you perceive it in others yet are content with ambiguity, imprecision in your own writings.
Let me ask you what "revelation" do you think I have claimed, then we can look at the "gist" of your questions.
In evolutionary terms, think of the "lion or wind" example.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin
-Punkinhead Martin
- Tcg
- Savant
- Posts: 8487
- Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2017 5:01 am
- Location: Third Stone
- Has thanked: 2141 times
- Been thanked: 2293 times
Re: Scientific thinking and common sense
Post #157Nope. I am referring to the Quakers:Perhaps you're thinking of Puritans.
You haven't looked back far enough in their history. I'm far from a Quaker scholar, but I attended Quaker Meeting for many years in my former hometown. I know about this history because I was told of it by Quakers.Quakers: From Slave Traders to Early Abolitionists
The Quakers were among the most prominent slave traders during the early days of the country; paradoxically, they were also among the first denominations to protest slavery. The denomination's internal battle to do so, however, took over a century. Their fight began in Pennsylvania. There, in April 1688, four Dutch members of "The Society of Friends," as it was then known, sent a short petition "against the traffick of men-body" to their meeting in Germantown.
https://www.pbs.org/thisfarbyfaith/journey_1/p_7.html
Tcg
To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.
- American Atheists
Not believing isn't the same as believing not.
- wiploc
I must assume that knowing is better than not knowing, venturing than not venturing; and that magic and illusion, however rich, however alluring, ultimately weaken the human spirit.
- Irvin D. Yalom
- American Atheists
Not believing isn't the same as believing not.
- wiploc
I must assume that knowing is better than not knowing, venturing than not venturing; and that magic and illusion, however rich, however alluring, ultimately weaken the human spirit.
- Irvin D. Yalom
- JoeyKnothead
- 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 #158"How bout them Quakers?"
"I preciate they got into abolition early on."
"I meant earlier that."
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin
-Punkinhead Martin
- Tcg
- Savant
- Posts: 8487
- Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2017 5:01 am
- Location: Third Stone
- Has thanked: 2141 times
- Been thanked: 2293 times
Re: Scientific thinking and common sense
Post #159Oh, without a doubt. I was just telling Rose about a man named John Woolman viewtopic.php?p=1088726#p1088726 who was an abolitionist before the Revolutionary war. It took Quakers awhile to become abolitionists, but once they did, they were all in.JoeyKnothead wrote: ↑Sun Aug 14, 2022 2:37 am"How bout them Quakers?"
"I preciate they got into abolition early on."
"I meant earlier that."
Tcg
To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.
- American Atheists
Not believing isn't the same as believing not.
- wiploc
I must assume that knowing is better than not knowing, venturing than not venturing; and that magic and illusion, however rich, however alluring, ultimately weaken the human spirit.
- Irvin D. Yalom
- American Atheists
Not believing isn't the same as believing not.
- wiploc
I must assume that knowing is better than not knowing, venturing than not venturing; and that magic and illusion, however rich, however alluring, ultimately weaken the human spirit.
- Irvin D. Yalom
- Inquirer
- 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 #160I never denied that at some point in the past there was participation in slave related commerce, I don't think one can point to any social organization historically at that time in history and claim they were always anti slavery.Tcg wrote: ↑Sun Aug 14, 2022 12:31 amNope. I am referring to the Quakers:Perhaps you're thinking of Puritans.
You haven't looked back far enough in their history. I'm far from a Quaker scholar, but I attended Quaker Meeting for many years in my former hometown. I know about this history because I was told of it by Quakers.Quakers: From Slave Traders to Early Abolitionists
The Quakers were among the most prominent slave traders during the early days of the country; paradoxically, they were also among the first denominations to protest slavery. The denomination's internal battle to do so, however, took over a century. Their fight began in Pennsylvania. There, in April 1688, four Dutch members of "The Society of Friends," as it was then known, sent a short petition "against the traffick of men-body" to their meeting in Germantown.
https://www.pbs.org/thisfarbyfaith/journey_1/p_7.html
But to characterize Quakerism as pro-slavery is historically wrong, as I showed you they were the first to begin denouncing and questioning it on moral grounds when every other denomination was supportive of slavery.
Early activists in the suffragette movement were Quaker women.
The fact remains - historically supported fact - that organized opposition to slavery in the US began within Quakerism, that speaks volumes about the ethics of Quaker thinking.
A prominent sector of US "Christianity" is rooted in Puritanism and to this day exhibits aspects of those roots, the political evangelical movement with its fundamentalism and rules and regulations grew into the monster it is, here in the US.
This is one of the foundation stones of the insanity that supports Trump, claims he won the election, claims he is a victim - contrast that mindset with today's Quakers who are openly and vocally opposed to Trump.
It seems to me that when there are denouncements of "Christianity" in this forum, particularly in the Science and Religion area, it is presumed that American political evangelical groups represent all of Christianity, that is Christianity is attacked and denounced by reference to examples of modern day Puritanism.
The Quakers (and there are others) have little in common with these people and as I've pointed out before many scientists were Quakers (few were Puritans). Much of Christian thought in the old world has a strong intellectual and philosophical element, but not the evangelical nationalists here in the US, that primitive, often irrational "Christianity" hardly exists outside of the US.