What specifically about morality interested you?
Morality. Right and wrong. Seemed simple until i started to really think about it.
How do i know what is right if I don't know what right is. His wrong is my right so who is right... That's how it started for me
It's a huge topic but uv brought up some other huge topics as well like this
What ended up convincing you to convert to Christianity?
Wel it wasn't some fantastic moment of enlightenment. More like a journey where a lot of things contributed like morality, science, evil, consciousness, the universe, our minds, nature and heaps of other things
That's a brief on those topics, we can discuss them further eventually if u want.
I don't think i can juggle that many deep conversations at once, LoL. So for now i'll focus on the science stuff.
For full disclosure, I do work in biology and I used to spend quite a bit of time in online debates with creationists.
Ok well i'll tell u what i doubt and we'll go from there.
Ah, engineers! I work with a few and we always joke about the differences between biology and engineering. Engineers work in a world where things are precise and constant, whereas the world of biology has a lot of "sometimes" and "possiblys".
Ahhh, precise and constant, thats us
Its the sometimes and possibilities that don't sit well with me.
Firstly, there is applied science and theoretical science. The applied science has to be precise whereas the theoretical science doesn't
Mechanical engineering is applied science. Cosmology can be theoretical
It's the same with biology. There are jobs in biology that require precision, true.
That is basically what my inquiry was centered on. The standards of evidence and the methods of falsification
For us, mathematics and testing is how we falsify/verify
I put my faith in ToE and big bang theory expecting them to be precise
This assumption was the main reason for me becoming an atheist.
The realization that it wasn't so precise and verifiable pushed me to agnosticism.
Ok, so i don't deny microevolution like the beaks on Darwins finches
My skepticism is with common ancestry and macroevolution, natural selection through random mutation
It is said that all life began with one cell. What happened leading up to this is a whole other topic that im skeptical of but we'll assume that for argument sake.
With the cell, for me, falsifiable evidence would be to show how one cell can spawn another cell, a different new cell. Cos there are heaps of different types of cells that make up an animal, right.
Then, when there are heaps of different cells how did they arrange themselves to create all the organs, bones and the countless other parts of an animal.
And then how would of those body parts come together to create an animal.
From one cell to the animal is such a massive leap.
What is the falsifiable evidence for it? An observable lab exercise or maths would be ideal.
Then we get multiple animals and plants from this common ancestor by natural selection through random mutation.
Ok, so they know the genome of animals like flies, mice and such, right. And they've been at work trying to create a mutation that is superior in some way to the original.
So from an engineers perspective i would like to see something like a fly with un upgrade in its propulsion system, maybe bigger wings so its faster or something, u know.
But even that would only demonstrate microevolution. To demonstrate macro evolution then we would need to do several mutations in order to show the fly evolve into something else like a wasp. And that evolve into a different type of species all together (phyla is it) like a fish or mammal
From what I understand every mutation has resulted in a deficient creature
Without testable or mathematical evidence its hard for me to believe it.
Im guessing u will talk about fossils.
How can u tell if its a transitional species or a different species?
Do fossils show us how plants and animals diverged?
What are the best fossil evidence for transition of species? Is it that archaeopteryx still?
It might be evidence, but it might not be as well
Is there an adequate explanation for the Cambrian explosion of new life forms?
Are fossils falsifiable? How? They can be interpreted differently by different people
One thing i find as being deceitful are the clay sculptures and illustrations of apes that look like men. Lucy is our best example right.
From memory it is said that the final evolutionary development for man was the ability to walk on two legs. If that was the case then why doesn't Lucy look like a human, why does she still look like an ape in these clay sculptures?
But the my biggest skepticism comes from the fact that so very few bones were even found. No feet bones. So the hypothesis that she walked on two legs comes down to speculation again, i think the hips or something. There is such a massive difference between our feet and that of an apes which is more like a hand. Would that have evolved in the one mutation or several? And the hips and legs?
Another thing that makes me suspect is the motive, the war between creationists and Darwinist's has been going on since day one. Hoaxes have been presented like piltdown man.
Characters like Richard Dawkins always made me scratch my head. Here we have a biologist that never talks about biology. Instead he talks about the one thing that shouldn't be spoken about in science, religion. There is a clear motive there
It all makes me question the motivation.
We must follow the facts but they create a hypothesis and then look for evidence to support it while ignoring anything that contradicts it, there is a term for this method of inquiry and im not a fan of it.
The way that Darwinism is presented appears to be ideologically driven as well. I see it as they best hypothesis science has atm. But it's presented as unquestionable fact.
Their some of the points that im skeptical about anyway
Sorry for writing a book, i hope its not boring and makes sense
