history and faith

[mererdog]

17 minutes ago, Key said:

Selective breeding? Still sounds like evolution to me. How else to get black from white, or vice versa?

Evolution theory, btw, also can cover changes in just one species.

 

[Key]

2 minutes ago, mererdog said:

 

Micro or macro in evolution, still all evolution to me, else it wouldn't be evolution.

[Pastor Dave]

On 4/12/2018 at 1:47 PM, Key said:

... How else to get black from white, or vice versa?

...

 

Let's see if I can show this with dogs. My son has a mating pair of red Alaskan malamutes. They have produced two liters. One half of the puppies have been white. White Alaskan malamutes are the least common color. They kept one of the white females. She was bred to a white male. Two liters from her so far. All white puppies. One of the females from her first liter was bred back to a red and only produced one red puppy.  But there was an intelligent force (my son ) driving the change.

[Pastor Dave]

Free your minds, brothers and sisters....

Free your minds

Free your minds

Free your minds ....

Free your minds from the oppression put upon you by the established purveyors of what passes for knowledge. Free your minds from your years of being herded together in little boxes and told what to think and how to think and when to think about whatever they want you to think about for eight hours a day nine or ten months a year for twelve, fourteen, sixteen, even twenty years or more. See other possibilities.

Edited April 13, 2018 by Pastor Dave

[Pastor Dave]

[mererdog]

13 hours ago, Pastor Dave said:

See other possibilities.

Take your own advice? Consider the following words. Do they demonstrate an openness to possibility?

"Macro evolution can not be proven. It can not be tested. It has not been reproduced. It can not be observed."

The phrase "can not" is used to shut doors. Belief in impossibility prevents progress by convincing us to forego effort. In other words, Can't never could because Can't never tried.

When we believe a thing cannot be done, we pooh-pooh reports that it has been done.

Our belief innoculates us against evidence that our belief is wrong. We dont bother to look at it. If we look at it, we dont bother to take it seriously. If we take it seriously, we reduce it to a caricature.

 

Your position here is strange to me. On the one hand, you want us to see other possibilities. On the other hand, you openly mock scientists using wording that denotes uncertainty.  I am having trouble reconciling this. 

 

Edited April 14, 2018 by mererdog

[Pastor Dave]

On 4/9/2018 at 5:52 AM, mererdog said:

In what way is it not? Evolutionary theories deal with things we cannot (currently) directly observe.

 

On 4/10/2018 at 10:31 AM, mererdog said:

At the same time, as we get further and further into the process, people become more and more personally convinced. Reputations get wagered on pet theories. A certain level of fraud becomes inevitable.

 

2 hours ago, mererdog said:

Take your own advice? Consider the following words. Do they demonstrate an openness to possibility?

"Macro evolution can not be proven. It can not be tested. It has not been reproduced. It can not be observed."

The phrase "can not" is used to shut doors.

 

Who was it that said "Evolutionary theories deal with things we cannot (currently) directly observe."

Ah ha, the old double standard. It's ok for you to say it, but if I do I seem to have committed some wrong.

 

2 hours ago, mererdog said:

When we believe a thing cannot be done, we pooh-pooh reports that it has been done.

Our belief innoculates us against evidence that our belief is wrong. We dont bother to look at it. If we look at it, we dont bother to take it seriously. If we take it seriously, we reduce it to a caricature.

 

Just remember when you point a finger at me you have three pointing back at yourself.

 

3 hours ago, mererdog said:

 

Your position here is strange to me. On the one hand, you want us to see other possibilities. On the other hand, you openly mock scientists using wording that denotes uncertainty.  I am having trouble reconciling this.

 

Where exactly have I mocked any scientist? I have not mocked any scientist. I have merely tried to show where the average person has misunderstood what the scientists have actually said.

The scientist says this is possible. Not that it the only possibility. Just that it is a possibility.

The textbook writers then change that, ever so slightly, and it becomes this is likely.

The teacher reads this and tells the student that this is probably how it happened.

The student then goes about proclaiming this is how it happened.

It's like the old telephone game. Slight changes as the story is passed on.

 

Nor have I said that an intelligent force directing the development of life on Earth is the only possibility.

Just that it is a possibility.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

2 hours ago, Pastor Dave said:

 

 

Who was it that said "Evolutionary theories deal with things we cannot (currently) directly observe."

Ah ha, the old double standard. It's ok for you to say it, but if I do I seem to have committed some wrong.

 

 

Just remember when you point a finger at me you have three pointing back at yourself.

 

 

Where exactly have I mocked any scientist? I have not mocked any scientist. I have merely tried to show where the average person has misunderstood what the scientists have actually said.

The scientist says this is possible. Not that it the only possibility. Just that it is a possibility.

The textbook writers then change that, ever so slightly, and it becomes this is likely.

The teacher reads this and tells the student that this is probably how it happened.

The student then goes about proclaiming this is how it happened.

It's like the old telephone game. Slight changes as the story is passed on.

 

Nor have I said that an intelligent force directing the development of life on Earth is the only possibility.

Just that it is a possibility.

 

 

Scientists like to speak and write with caution.  They know that future findings might modify or invalidate their life's work.  This is not a sign of weakness on the part of science.  Only coping with reality.

 

Religious writers like to speak with absolute certitude.  This is not a strength on the part of religion.  

 

 

 

[Pastor Dave]

1 hour ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

 

Scientists like to speak and write with caution.  They know that future findings might modify or invalidate their life's work.  This is not a sign of weakness on the part of science.  Only coping with reality.

 

 

 

Hmmmm,

Yes! We are in agreement here. I have no problem with the way scientists word their findings as speculation. It is when that speculation becomes seen, no longer as speculation, but rather as fact is where I draw the line. These are the places where I try to see other possibilities. It was possible that someone with a third set of possibilities might have jumped in to the conversation.

 

1 hour ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

Religious writers like to speak with absolute certitude.  This is not a strength on the part of religion.  

 

 

 

 

I have purposely avoided any use of religion in this discussion. I have not brought any Holy book into the conversation. This does not have to be about religion.

 

As a side note on that thought;

Why is it that we can have such confidence in a man who has devoted his life to finding the answers in science about scientific things, yet for some reason, some think we should not trust spiritual leaders who have devoted their live to studying spiritual things about spiritual matters?

Edited April 14, 2018 by Pastor Dave

[cuchulain]

2 minutes ago, Pastor Dave said:

 

Hmmmm,

Yes! We are in agreement here. I have no problem with the way scientists word their findings as speculation. It is when that speculation becomes seen, no longer as speculation, but rather as fact is where I draw the line. These are the places where I try to see other possibilities. It was possible that someone with a third set of possibilities might have jumped in to the conversation.

 

 

I have purposely avoided any use of religion in this discussion. I have not brought any Holy book into the conversation. This does not have to be about religion.

 

As a side note on that thought;

Why is it that we can have such confidence in a man who has devoted his life to finding the answers in science about scientific things, yet for some reason, some think we should not trust spiritual leaders who have devoted their live to studying spiritual things?

On the side note.  I think it boils down to people's experiences.  I have encountered and dealt with many scientific and spiritual people over the years.  I am speaking in generalizations, which I know is a bad thing, so bare that in mind please. 

Scientific people usually in my experience come off a lot calmer, a lot more assured.  They look into matters and try to figure them out.  There is a plethora of scientific data and information which has been used over the centuries reliably.  Occasionally a scientist will get caught fudging his or her research, and usually when that happens they fall on their sword, so to speak, they admit they were wrong and are sorry about it.  They take the consequences of their actions.  But that doesn't happen so often in my experience(i may be wrong, I just haven't met ANY personally who have fudged their numbers to make something work).  

Spiritual people come off in a variety of ways, so it isn't as predictable.  They can be calm and soothing, or they can be yellers.  They can be any number of things just like anyone else really, but in dealing with matters of spirit, people tend to get a little more worked up.  They have more invested I think in being right, as they align with religions and spiritual practices based on who they are, and so if a person can attack the information provided by their spirituality, they are in essence attacking that person as well.  They might look into matters to try to figure them out, like the scientist, but in my experience they like to cherry pick their facts a LOT more, going with the studies that affirm what they already believe and heckling the studies that show otherwise.  There is a history of spiritual people being wrong AND STILL TRYING TO ASSERT THAT THEY ARE RIGHT.  Scientists typically will admit that they are wrong when it is shown, be it by their own study or someone else's.  It's kind of a scientific community delight actually to prove the other guy wrong.  A spiritual person getting donations will certainly fight to prove that they were not engaged in any illicit activities, even though it eventually comes out that they were, and they will not give back those donations.  Scientists with their funding are a different matter altogether.  

 

In essence, it boils down to peoples experience with the two types of people.  So most people will believe the scientist, and not the spiritual person, because that's been their experience.  

[Pastor Dave]

14 minutes ago, cuchulain said:

On the side note. .......

 

In essence, it boils down to peoples experience with the two types of people.  So most people will believe the scientist, and not the spiritual person, because that's been their experience.  

 

I can appreciate your experiences. In particular the calming vs the yelling preacher. If your experiences with spiritual leaders have not been good then I can understand your reluctance to trust them.

But does that really apply to most people?

Edited April 14, 2018 by Pastor Dave

[cuchulain]

1 minute ago, Pastor Dave said:

 

I can appreciate your experiences. In particular the calming vs the yelling preacher. If your experiences with spiritual leaders have not been good then I can understand your reluctance to trust them.

Personally, I have a hard time trusting just about anyone anymore.  Just basic life and experience with other humans.  I used to be exceptionally naïve in that I gave everyone the benefit of the doubt.  I took teachers' words for it when they told me as a young child we were all special and unique and valuable.  Then I took teachers words for it when I grew up a little bit, about middle school, when they insisted we were all the same and nobody was any different than anyone else.  Then I had a good teacher in college who taught me how to think for myself   Sometimes that is a slow process, but I get there eventually.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

1 hour ago, Pastor Dave said:

 

Hmmmm,

Yes! We are in agreement here. I have no problem with the way scientists word their findings as speculation. It is when that speculation becomes seen, no longer as speculation, but rather as fact is where I draw the line. These are the places where I try to see other possibilities. It was possible that someone with a third set of possibilities might have jumped in to the conversation.

 

 

I have purposely avoided any use of religion in this discussion. I have not brought any Holy book into the conversation. This does not have to be about religion.

 

As a side note on that thought;

Why is it that we can have such confidence in a man who has devoted his life to finding the answers in science about scientific things, yet for some reason, some think we should not trust spiritual leaders who have devoted their live to studying spiritual things about spiritual matters?

 

The process leads to different results.  When a scientist finds something -- or thinks that he might have found something -- the results go out for peer review and replication.  The goal -- at least a major goal -- is to end up with objective, verifiable facts.  Scientists are not shy about disproving each other's findings.

 

Consider the situation with religion.  I am deliberately not going to talk about Christianity or Bible studies.  There are things that we can be less passionate -- and more neutral -- about.

 

The example I would like to invoke is Daoist Tai Chi.  There are Tai Chi masters who spend much of their lives in advanced study of "chi" -- the internal life force.  Besides their studies of Tai Chi -- they also study traditional Chinese Medicine, with it's studies of the meridians and chakra system -- along with related studies.  Western Science finds no foundation for any of these beliefs and or facts -- aside from agreeing that the stretching and balance aspects of Tai Chi are useful.

 

It is a classic dispute between religious studies people, who are convinced that they are working with objective facts -- and other people who are convinced that the whole thing is speculative crap.

 

I should pause and declare my own bias here.  I am a Reiki practitioner who is taking Tai Chi classes.  I'm inclined to believe that the "Chi" or "Ki" as it's called, is real.  I am also aware that none of this rests upon a foundation of objective, verifiable fact.  I'm saying this for a reason.  I actually do understand belief without proof.

 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

1 hour ago, Pastor Dave said:

 

I can appreciate your experiences. In particular the calming vs the yelling preacher. If your experiences with spiritual leaders have not been good then I can understand your reluctance to trust them.

But does that really apply to most people?

 

There is more involved here, than positive or negative experience, with individual clergy.  It would be hard to find a scientist, who thinks that another scientist is damned to eternal Hell Fire -- for working with the wrong theory.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Key]

On 4/13/2018 at 2:08 PM, Pastor Dave said:

 

Let's see if I can show this with dogs. My son has a mating pair of red Alaskan malamutes. They have produced two liters. One half of the puppies have been white. White Alaskan malamutes are the least common color. They kept one of the white females. She was bred to a white male. Two liters from her so far. All white puppies. One of the females from her first liter was bred back to a red and only produced one red puppy.  But there was an intelligent force (my son ) driving the change.

So, you're son is choosing the pairs to mate, but the dogs are the ones doing the work, thus nature is making the changes.