Scientific thinking and common sense

[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?

[Inquirer]

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.

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.

This is absurd, I mean for starters who's opinion would you like me to express? yours!

[brunumb]

This is absurd, I mean for starters who's opinion would you like me to express? yours!

Opinions don't qualify as evidence. That much is self-evident.

[Tcg]

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.

I never characterized Quakerism as pro-slavery. I pointed out the fact that at one point in their history they indeed were pro-slavery. This is unquestionably true unless of course one is going to argue that being a major player in the slave trade wasn't pro-slavery.

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.

I'm not sure really what the point of this diatribe is, but I'll simply point out the fact that it is a mistake to consider all Quakers Christians as not all Quakers consider themselves Christians.


Tcg

[otseng]

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.

Moderator Comment

Both of you. please cease from the personal comments.

Please review the Rules.





______________



Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Inquirer]

I'm not sure really what the point of this diatribe is, but I'll simply point out the fact that it is a mistake to consider all Quakers Christians as not all Quakers consider themselves Christians.

I agree, if you think I said otherwise please share that with us.

[Tcg]

I'm not sure really what the point of this diatribe is, but I'll simply point out the fact that it is a mistake to consider all Quakers Christians as not all Quakers consider themselves Christians.

I agree, if you think I said otherwise please share that with us.

I don't and didn't in any way suggest that you did. I was just trying to add some kind of value to the discussion. Something other than a diatribe on Puritanism or whatever it was.


Tcg

[Inquirer]

I'm not sure really what the point of this diatribe is, but I'll simply point out the fact that it is a mistake to consider all Quakers Christians as not all Quakers consider themselves Christians.

I agree, if you think I said otherwise please share that with us.

I don't and didn't in any way suggest that you did. I was just trying to add some kind of value to the discussion. Something other than a diatribe on Puritanism or whatever it was.


Tcg

What you describe as diatribe is my considered opinion, here's what I said:

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.

Its my opinion, the disparaging criticisms I see here of theists, Christians, seems - to me - to be rooted in disapproval not of the broader historic intellectual Christian tradition which had 1,500 year history in the Old World (before the American colonies even existed), but the narrow perhaps US specific, brand of Biblical fundamentalism.

I mentioned Quakers to emphasize my earlier point that many Christians do not fit that simplistic image, the fire n brimstone, "anti science", right wing, pro Trump, legalistic theology.

[Tcg]

I'm not sure really what the point of this diatribe is, but I'll simply point out the fact that it is a mistake to consider all Quakers Christians as not all Quakers consider themselves Christians.

I agree, if you think I said otherwise please share that with us.

I don't and didn't in any way suggest that you did. I was just trying to add some kind of value to the discussion. Something other than a diatribe on Puritanism or whatever it was.


Tcg

What you describe as diatribe is my considered opinion, here's what I said:

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.

Its my opinion, the disparaging criticisms I see here of theists, Christians, seems - to me - to be rooted in disapproval not of the broader historic intellectual Christian tradition which had 1,500 year history in the Old World (before the American colonies even existed), but the narrow perhaps US specific, brand of Biblical fundamentalism.

I mentioned Quakers to emphasize my earlier point that many Christians do not fit that simplistic image, the fire n brimstone, "anti science", right wing, pro Trump, legalistic theology.

Okay then. And I will state again that not all Quakers consider themselves as Christians. So, using them as an example of what Christianity is is questionable.


Tcg

[Inquirer]

I'm not sure really what the point of this diatribe is, but I'll simply point out the fact that it is a mistake to consider all Quakers Christians as not all Quakers consider themselves Christians.

I agree, if you think I said otherwise please share that with us.

I don't and didn't in any way suggest that you did. I was just trying to add some kind of value to the discussion. Something other than a diatribe on Puritanism or whatever it was.


Tcg

What you describe as diatribe is my considered opinion, here's what I said:

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.

Its my opinion, the disparaging criticisms I see here of theists, Christians, seems - to me - to be rooted in disapproval not of the broader historic intellectual Christian tradition which had 1,500 year history in the Old World (before the American colonies even existed), but the narrow perhaps US specific, brand of Biblical fundamentalism.

I mentioned Quakers to emphasize my earlier point that many Christians do not fit that simplistic image, the fire n brimstone, "anti science", right wing, pro Trump, legalistic theology.

Okay then. And I will state again that not all Quakers consider themselves as Christians. So, using them as an example of what Christianity is is questionable.

My point was and I apologize if I failed to make it clear earlier, is that Quakers who are Christians do not share many of the troubling characteristics of the fundamentalist evangelicals who have much more in common with Puritanism. Many of the objections I see here about "Christians" really seem to primarily dwell on those kinds of Christians.

I never see many objections to - say - Quakers about their support for Trump (they don't) or their fanatical obsession with guns (they don't) or outlawing abortion (they don't). Quaker Christians are far more individualistic, they emphasize individual choice and conscience and consider each persons view and understanding of God to be private, unique to that person.

This is far closer to my own position on the Bible and Christianity, and its a shame that in general the objections to the narrow fundamentalism is used to tar all with the same brush.

[The Barbarian]

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.

Ach, du leiber! Noch einer.

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 doesn't have "higher or lower." Bacteria, for example, are very, very fit, in most cases. And fitness only counts in terms of environment. So what a creationist might call a "lower form of life" might be much more fit than some organism creationists would call "higher."

Evolutionary theory holds that as animals progressed up the evolutionary scale

There is no "scale." Darwin pretty much put the scala natura out of science.

they became more capable of surviving. Why, then, is the “inferior” ape family still in existence

Apes are rather well-fitted for the environments in which they evolved. Problem for them is those environments are shrinking.

Creationist wisdom hold that there must be some kind of scale of "higher" and "lower." But that's not the case.

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

It is one of the things that most holds creationists back from understanding.