Regardless what you think of it Evolution has brought us great good

by zagor 35 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  peacefulpete

  However, "Evolution" (in the dispued molecules-to-man sense) is really a claimed version of history. This view of history involves facts being interpreted by a religious/ philosophic framework (using philosophic principals such as materialism, uniformitarianism, etc.).

  Evolutionary science is not merely a philosophical interpretation of history. It is observed, studied and predicted. New species are being produced, DNA is being analyzed and relationships identified, new varieties resulting from mutations are predicted and observed on a regular basis. The past shows unmistakable evidence of change consistant with all present observations. Your comment above is little more than obfuscation.
• 

  hooberus

  Evolutionary science is not merely a philosophical interpretation of history.

  
  

  My comments were not to imply that Evolution (nor creationism) were "merely" philosophical interpretations of history, but instead to point out that the same scientific facts (fossils, DNA, etc.) are in both views interpreted through philosophic frameworks.

  It is observed, studied and predicted.

  This depends on what definition of "evolution" you are using (see my previous comments). The "Evolution" in question here -that is the view of history (universal common ancestry, men decending from the fish, etc.)- was not subject to direct observation.

  New species are being produced, DNA is being analyzed and relationships identified, new varieties resulting from mutations are predicted and observed on a regular basis.

  These same facts can also be interpreted quite well within a Biblical/ historical creationist framework. http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i1/creation.asp

  The past shows unmistakable evidence of change consistant with all present observations.

  By the "past" I assume that you are referring to the fossil record.
• 

  funkyderek

  hooberus:

  the same scientific facts (fossils, DNA, etc.) are in both views interpreted through philosophic frameworks.

  Yes, the "philosophic framework" of one view is that the world is real and largely as it appears to be, and that measuring, investigation and the use of logic can lead us to useful conclusions about the universe. The philosophic framework of the other view is that the Bible is correct, literally and inerrantly. I consider the former philosophic framework to be infinitely superior.
• 

  Abaddon

  hooberus

  The Creationism/Evolutionism debate/war is thus really about history.

  Absolutely true in some ways.

  For example, is the Great Pyramid at Giza proof that Creationist's narrow literalistic interpretation of the Bible is not a good way of determining history? The majority of historians believe so.

  Another example; are the bristlecone pines on top of mountains in California proof that Creationist's narrow literalistic interpretation of the Bible is not a good way of determining history? The majority of scientists believe so.

  Of course, Creationists ignore the majority of informed opinion is against them - they tend to imply that there is a conspiracy against 'truth' as revealed by the Bible. Their 'scientific' responses are not even credible enough to be published in credible journals - although again this is due to a 'godless' conspiracy, according to the Creationists.

  Of course, rather than calmly and intelligently trying to show that the common dates for the construction of the Great Pyramid and older structures are wrong, and that the dendrochrological and radiometric evidence I refer to are wrong using clear unambuguous data that has been peer reviewed, as a respoinse to this I expect;

  1. Waffle and bluster, probably using the word 'godless', or utiltising red herrings straw men or ad hominums, rather than actually dealing with any of the contested facts
  2. An AiG URL - despite having been show AiG's articles are typically unsceintific and can resort to concealing inconvenient facts that makes their claims obviously silly
  3. Nothing
• 

  hooberus

  Yes, the "philosophic framework" of one view is that the world is real and largely as it appears to be, and that measuring, investigation and the use of logic can lead us to useful conclusions about the universe. The philosophic framework of the other view is that the Bible is correct, literally and inerrantly. I consider the former philosophic framework to be infinitely superior.

  The Biblical creationist view does not precludes that "the world is real and largely as it appears to be, and that measuring, investigation and the use of logic can lead us to useful conclusions about the universe."
• 

  funkyderek

  
  
  hooberus:
  

  The Biblical creationist view does not precludes that "the world is real and largely as it appears to be, and that measuring, investigation and the use of logic can lead us to useful conclusions about the universe."

  
  

  
  No, it doesn't preclude it, but such a view is secondary to their primary supposition that the Bible is true. Where there is a clear contradiction between the literalist interpretation of the Bible and the observable evidence (as in Abaddon's examples above), they choose the former.

  Many creationists deny that they presuppose such a thing. At least AIG are honest and admit it, although to justify this view they need to claim that those who believe in evolution also have presuppositions, and that these are of the same kind as their own, a claim that is clearly untrue.
• 

  hooberus

  Of course, rather than calmly and intelligently trying to show that the common dates for the construction of the Great Pyramid and older structures are wrong, and that the dendrochrological and radiometric evidence I refer to are wrong using clear unambuguous data that has been peer reviewed, as a respoinse to this I expect;

  1. Waffle and bluster, probably using the word 'godless', or utiltising red herrings straw men or ad hominums, rather than actually dealing with any of the contested facts

  I diasgree that I engase in such tactics,- anyone can check my post history on the these debates to decide for themselves.

  2. An AiG URL - despite having been show AiG's articles are typically unsceintific and can resort to concealing inconvenient facts that makes their claims obviously silly

  For a response to several of your accustions against AiG see:

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/102274/5.ashx

  3. Nothing

  For a reviewed response to things such as bristlecone pine tree ring chronologies, radiometric issues, etc. see:

  http://www.csfpittsburgh.org/icc03.htm
• 

  peacefulpete

  New species are being produced, DNA is being analyzed and relationships identified, new varieties resulting from mutations are predicted and observed on a regular basis.

  These same facts can also be interpreted quite well within a Biblical/ historical creationist framework.

  Please elucidate on how the observed ongoing process of speciation, the DNA evidence of relationships between species and the well known role of mutations producing new viable strains and variations are explained from a Bibical creationist framework, the link did not.
• 

  Abaddon

  hooberus

  I diasgree that I engase in such tactics,- anyone can check my post history on the these debates to decide for themselves.

  LOL, yeah, that would prove it! On top of the proof of the 'historical record' please provide the URL to where you have thus far show Dendrochronology or the commonly accepted chronologies for the Egyptians to be in error. I've asked dozens of times. Don't count you thinking the article by Don Batten disproved it, you've not ever responded to me showing this was another prime example of bad science on AiG.

  If you are unable to provide such a URL (we both know you can't), it would seem you have evaded dealing with this insurmountable problem for Creationists. A good example is the latest attempt; your contempt for the intelligence of fellow posters never ceases to amase me.

  For a reviewed response to things such as bristlecone pine tree ring chronologies, radiometric issues, etc. see:

  Now, here you are clearly trying to give the impression that you are refering me to a peer reviewed article, in response to my criticisms about peer review process or lack thereof. This is not true.

  Any peer review of the CD-ROM proceedings copies of the Fifth International Conference on Creationism (2003) failed to comply with the standards normally applied to peer reviewing. You are essentially implying that something written by a Flat Earther and then read by another Flat Earther is peer reviewed.

  I find that deceptive.

  Also, you typing 'Bristlecone pine' into a serach engine and finding an article doesn't mean the article disproves dendrochronology, as you've shown in the past. Please give me a condensed version of Woodmorappe's argument - I assume you read it before providing it? You did read it hooberus, didn't you?

  See what I mean hooberus? Rather than actually dealing with any of the contested facts you use what ever wriggling you can to avoid it. But having read Woodmorappe's article, I am sure you will be able to show me how wrong dendrochronology is. I await with pleasure.

  Now it gets funny, in that my long-held suspicion you often don't even have the courtesy to read responses to you is confirmed;

  For a response to several of your accustions against AiG see:

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/102274/5.ashx

  Errr.... hoobey huney, on the same page I detail how ludicrous and insubstancial your reaction was...
• 

  Forscher

  At the risk of getting jumped on here, I don't have a big problem with thought that Evolution, as a theory has done some good. Since I have no problem with the concept of MICROevolution, I can say that. Neither will I deny that the materialist base for science was a good thing. It resulted in progress because it kept religious organizations from defining what was and wasn't in the material realm. But when the scienticfic community trys to set itself up as the ultimate arbiter of truth, then it goes beyond its boundries. That is what it is doing in the classrooms.
  
  
  Forscher