I am with you on this one, Alice, being one who has slightly more education than the average JW. I frequently would like to see more in-depth studies when it comes to questions like this one - evolution - and also trinity, certain single Bible passages, chronology etc. - but when you are to publish literature that is to reach the African farmer and South American miner as well as the Spanish unemployed and Belgian civil servant, it all gets a bit tricky. So as you say, I find more arguments in non-JW literature. As for the evolution debate, I have found much of value in the writings of Scherer and his "basic units" theory, and also Behe and others; on the trinity there are many books out there. Etc. Of course, I would like that all JW literature was spotless when it comes to quotes. But the literature of one camp cannot gain the applause of the other camp. I find it very improbable that a book issued by the creation camp would be hailed by the evolution camp and likewise the other way around. And as for quotes, there is a difference between what the author specifically said and what his meaning or thoughts around the point were. You have this quote where an author says that the dynamics of evolution is indeed very, very improbable. Then in the next sentence he says that this is exactly what happened. Did he say what is quoted as the first sentence? Yes, he did. But was his opinion that an evolution after all had taken place? Yes, it was. Still I find no problems in giving the first sentence as a quote and the stop there, because he DID say it was very improbable. I find this quoting game very tiresome, because of the line between actual quotes and then the authors theories surrounding these quotes.
The Origin of Life / Was Life Created - Utter Lies!
by God_Delusion 67 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
wobble
The WT quotes are on a par with what you see on the front of a theatre, in lights i.e " the best show I have seen this year ! New York Times "
What the NY Times theatre critic actually wrote was "I would like to say this is the best show I have seen this year, but I cannot .... "
It is dishonest to use a quote that appears to say the opposite of what the author intended.
It is LYING .
The WT should not be allowed to get away with it.
Now I am going to quote from AIW's quote from Francis Collins,
"The evidence supporting the idea that all living things are descended from a common ancestor is truly overwhelming. I would not necessarily wish that to be so, as a Bible believing Christian, but it is so."
So, Macro-evolution is not scientifically in doubt then.
-
bohm
Alice, i think you misunderstand what "evidence" mean in the physical sence. Say you have two hypothesis, lets call them "Evolution" and "God". Now go in and see what they predict. Evolution predict (with high probability) that gene duplication takes place, and several researchers have speculated major gene duplication events is associated with the advent of some of the major changes in life on earth.
It is also to be expected that occationally genes are removed. Im not making this up, just read through the conclusion and you can find the articles where these predictions are made.
I can say it in another way: Suppose the study found no major gene duplication events, and no evidence genes had ever been removed. Who would have been the most surpriced by this outcome? Which "theory" (i use the term loosely since im not sure theistic evolution make any predictions at all) would have the harder time reconsiling these findings?
The theory you select is also the theory this is evidence for. It does not "proove" macroevolution in one sweep [nothing will ever do that!], but it provides evidence for macroevolution. See how the duplication event correspond to the vertebra tree in figure 2; evolution can only have it one way, namely the one you see. How does that compare to theistic evolution? Can you really make up rules for God and say: "this gene MUST be duplicated in both humans and apes because it is in frogs and pigs"?
-
Caedes
AIW,
You really should learn how to use the quote button or somehow indicate where you are quoting along with the source of course.
I realise that would leave the majority of your posts free of any original comment whatsoever but at least it would be honest.
Nice to see you failed to answer any of my questions.
Although I appreciate a scientist of your caliber may feel such things are beneath you would you care to expand on your assertion that the E-Coli long term experiment doesn't provide any evidence for evolution. Most famous scientists know that you have to back up assertions with actual empirical evidence. Or were you just spouting?
Wobble,
You are too kind my dear fellow.
-
PrimateDave
There's a lot of noise in this thread about whether or not evolution is real. Frankly, I'm pretty sure no one is going to convince anyone else of his or her personal viewpoint, especially with long quotes from sources. I'm surprised JaguarBass hasn't come here with his notions about Nibiru. I've read Behe's book and understand his theories on ID and irreducible complexity. I've read books by paleontologists. I've read Creationist arguments and the Talk Origins web site. I can make up my own mind, thank you very much.
Alice, you're missing the point: The WTS used Logical Fallacies and Quote Mining in this brochure. Learn what these are and why they make your arguments useless. Apparently some of us are able to see the deliberate manipulation for what it is. They didn't dumb it down for African herders or South American miners. They knowingly lied. But they were very clever about it. Clever enough that the information will go over the heads of 95% of the Witnesses who read it and convince them that they have the troof!
-
Black Sheep
Still I find no problems in giving the first sentence as a quote and the stop there, because he DID say it was very improbable.
I have had my JW family members support this type of dishonesty almost verbatum.
It really sticks in my craw. These were people who for my entire life had been teaching me that I had to watch out for people who used half truths to deceive me, and here they were looking me straight in the eye defending the use of half truths, and ........... they were insinuating that I was the bad guy because I wasn't falling for it.
It's impossible to have an intelligent debate with people who are prepared to flush their principals down the toilet every time they paint themselves into a corner.
When I got this latest rag, I picked out a quote because it looked easy to verify. It was. It was an example of this same selective dishonest quoting. Disgusting. They should be ashamed of themselves.
Cheers
Chris
-
Billy the Ex-Bethelite
Sorry, I haven't ready many of the posts here, but I just wanted to post my take on the brochures. They may as well entitle them...
PROOF THAT THE NOACHIAN GLOBAL FLOOD OF THE BIBLE IS A COMPLETE FRAUD!
It's totally bizarre to me that they will say in these publications that any evolution is impossible over the course of millions of years... but they will say that all the species of the world today were able to fit in Noah's ark just 4000 years ago. When the animals disembarked, they spread over the earth and in only 4000 years (not millions) miraculously "non-evolved" into unique species that are incapable of interbreeding...
...that's more radical than any evolutionist would propose. If you believe Noah's flood is truth you MUST believe evolution is truth.
-
debator
The sidetracking of using the word evolution away from source of life has led to people now using the word "Darwinist" it is clearlr than saying "Evolutionist" and includes all the points that a Darwinist thinks we come from ape-like ancesters etc.
So now I don't say "Your an Evolutionist" I say instead "your a Darwinist!"
-
alice.in.wonderland
"Now I am going to quote from AIW's quote from Francis Collins,
"The evidence supporting the idea that all living things are descended from a common ancestor is truly overwhelming. I would not necessarily wish that to be so, as a Bible believing Christian, but it is so."
So, Macro-evolution is not scientifically in doubt then."
In his book he makes a case for theistic evolution. Atheistic evolution is in doubt by those who acknowledge the truth about reality. Some people prefer the godless worldview. This has more to do with the person than any findings in biology.
DNA is a nucleic acid that contains the genetic instructions used in the development and functioning of all known living organisms. The main role of DNA molecules is the long-term storage of information. Upon execution, the genetic instructions translate into taxonomical differences (structural, anatomical, physiological, etc) in different species.
DNA can work like code/data. I don't know how much you know about programming languages, but a single language can be used to design some very different programs.
Physical findings, lately made by genetic analysis, just bolster confidence in what we already know about humans and other species; we share some common biological attributes (because we were designed by the same designer):
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11591642
Comparison of human sequences with the DNA of other mammals is an excellent means of identifying functional elements in the human genome. Here we describe the utility of high-density oligonucleotide arrays as a rapid approach for comparing human sequences with the DNA of multiple species whose sequences are not presently available. High-density arrays representing approximately 22.5 Mb of nonrepetitive human chromosome 21 sequence were synthesized and then hybridized with mouse and dog DNA to identify sequences conserved between humans and mice (human-mouse elements) and between humans and dogs (human-dog elements).Evolutionists seem to think by comparing human sequences, this is evidence we descended from dogs and mice, etc. Detecting Darwinism at the molecular level would mean observing gene duplication events in macroevolution for example, not identifying sequences between humans and a dog.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_duplication#Gene_duplication_as_an_evolutionary_event
Gene duplication is believed to play a major role in evolution; this stance has been held by members of the scientific community for over 100 years. Susumu Ohno was one of the most famous developers of this theory in his classic book Evolution by gene duplication (1970). Ohno argued that gene duplication is the most important evolutionary force since the emergence of the universal common ancestor.
Major genome duplication events are not uncommon but these events never play any part in the evolution of a new species through successive generations. It's just theorized it plays a role without any qualifying evidence.
After 100 years with no direct observation, it's reasonable to conclude it would take a miracle for this to take place on a consistent basis. That brings us back to theistic evolution. -
diamondiiz
Is God a theory? Can you prove God?