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
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 #151

Post by Jose Fly »

Inquirer wrote: Sat Aug 13, 2022 1:42 pm I beg to differ, these are different questions, these examples are asking me if I think Muslims or Hindus or Mormons are lying, please do not stoop to attempting to deny this either, I really have no time for such antics.
Oh 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.

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 #152

Post by Inquirer »

Jose Fly wrote: Sat Aug 13, 2022 1:48 pm
Inquirer wrote: Sat Aug 13, 2022 1:42 pm I beg to differ, these are different questions, these examples are asking me if I think Muslims or Hindus or Mormons are lying, please do not stoop to attempting to deny this either, I really have no time for such antics.
Oh 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.
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.

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 #153

Post by Jose Fly »

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.
Never 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.
Being apathetic is great....or not. I don't really care.

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 #154

Post by Inquirer »

Jose Fly wrote: Sat Aug 13, 2022 1:58 pm
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.
Never 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.
Yes of course, its always someone else's fault isn't it Jose.

User avatar
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 #155

Post by brunumb »

Inquirer wrote: Sat Aug 13, 2022 12:59 pm
brunumb wrote: Fri Aug 12, 2022 7:44 pm How does one determine that something is self-evident, given that there are also things that are not self-evident. Received revelation from God is not a self-evident truth just because you make that claim.
The statement you just made "Received revelation from God is not a self-evident truth just because you make that claim", can you prove that?
Nah. 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 pm
brunumb wrote: Fri Aug 12, 2022 7:44 pm You never even attempted to elaborate on how this revelation occurred.
I 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.

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 #156

Post by JoeyKnothead »

Jose Fly wrote: Sat Aug 13, 2022 1:58 pm
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.
Never 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.
It 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.

In evolutionary terms, think of the "lion or wind" example.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin

User avatar
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 #157

Post by Tcg »

Inquirer wrote: Sat Aug 13, 2022 1:15 pm
I was referring to the earlier Quaker movement, yes I am aware of non-theist quakers and I welcome them.
Tcg wrote: Sat Aug 13, 2022 1:43 am
You mean back when they were slave owners or some other time period?
Perhaps you're thinking of Puritans.
Nope. I am referring to the 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
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.


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

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 #158

Post by JoeyKnothead »

Tcg wrote: Sun Aug 14, 2022 12:31 am 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.
"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

User avatar
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 #159

Post by Tcg »

JoeyKnothead wrote: Sun Aug 14, 2022 2:37 am
Tcg wrote: Sun Aug 14, 2022 12:31 am 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.
"How bout them Quakers?"

"I preciate they got into abolition early on."

"I meant earlier that."
Oh, 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.


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

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 #160

Post by Inquirer »

Tcg wrote: Sun Aug 14, 2022 12:31 am
Inquirer wrote: Sat Aug 13, 2022 1:15 pm
I was referring to the earlier Quaker movement, yes I am aware of non-theist quakers and I welcome them.
Tcg wrote: Sat Aug 13, 2022 1:43 am
You mean back when they were slave owners or some other time period?
Perhaps you're thinking of Puritans.
Nope. I am referring to the 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
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.
I 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.

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.

Post Reply