Awake! November 2011 - correct cover

by processor 91 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  JonathanH

  Science can explain the process, not how it came about.

  Science comes closer to explaining how it came about than religion does. Theology has no method of explaining anything other than taking scientific facts and then coming up with a made up explanation as to why god totally meant to do it that way. And there is no means of figuring out if the explanation is correct or incorrect. In the end you either accept that the relative consistency of physics is just a salient aspect of reality, or that there is an invisible ambiguous wizard that may or may not want you to do something, that made physics relatively consistent so that everything else in the universe would flow out from those physical actions and reactions naturally. And there is no good reason to believe the second one. If your view of god requires him to do something in our universe then you are either going to be consistently disapointed as science shows that "nope, that occurs naturally, no need for the supernatural afterall" or eternally ignorant insisting science can't explain things that it explained decades ago.
• 

  simon17

  This quote is funny from this:

  Regrettably, many of the world’s religions
  have added to the confusion by teaching
  things that contradict well-established scientific
  knowledge. A notable example is the unbiblical
  notion that God created the world in
  six 24-hour days a few thousand years ago.

  The creation of the earth a few thousand years ago WAS a biblical teaching until science said it was nonsensical. Now all of a sudden, its unbiblical.
• 

  unshackled

  Nickolas...I'll have to give The Selfish Gene a read. Thoroughly enjoyed Greatest Show on Earth - that one blew me away as to the incredible amount of diverse evidence for evolution. Scanning that latest Awake and their tiresome false assumptions and analogies was frustrating - amazing how people fall for the lies. But hopefully they're on a slippery slope as the evidence continues to pour in, and the evolution deniers eventually join the minority with the geocentrists.
• 

  Nickolas

  Science can explain the process, not how it came about.

  Science can postulate how it came about, however. Even the old primordial soup hypothesis makes sense. A couple of billion years ago the earth had cooled sufficiently and was covered 70-75% with water. The water was not pure H 2 0 but contained lots and lots of naturally occuring chemical compounds. These compounds made trillions upon trillions of random connections with other compounds and formed more complex compounds. Some chemical compounds have the capacity to combine with other compounds that are subsequently bonded within the molecule, others cause chemical reactions without being consumed in the process, ie. like a catalyst. Here scientists are divided. Many hold that a self-replicating molecule akin to primitive RNA arose and this was the genesis of life. Others, correctly citing that this would be an exceedingly improbable (although not by definition impossible) event believe that independent mutually replicating molecules is where it all began and it was after that self-replicators appeared. Whatever the beginning was, there was obviously no life on the planet to eat the replicators and they were free to populate the oceans with myriad versions of themselves. Some replicators grew dominant because they broke down and bonded with other replicators. Most times the modification was fatal because it either reduced or eliminated the molecules' ability to replicate but a very small part of the time the new more complex molecules were improved in ways that gave them some kind of advantage in the replication game, and then natural selection was in play.
• 

  LittleMac

  Haha, that is so funny. My wife just finished reading The Greatest Show on Earth, it's actually on our kitchen table right now. I was amazed by chapter one where the author differentiates the two definitions of a theory. During all those book studies we were taught that evolution was just a theory- yeah, by definition number one, though books like the Creation book wrote under the assumption of number two.

  They loved to quote that "Yes, it is agreed that evolution is a theory." from some source, but leave out the fact that it is an established theory among scientists.

  1. theory- a theorem, really, an established body of principles to explain something in our universe. i.e. the heliocentric theory- that the sun is the center of our solar system.

  2. theory- a hypothesis, something still proposed.

  The society quote-mines all of the time from scientists which makes it sound like they are saying things like that the fossil record is inconclusive, etc. What scientists like Dawkins are saying is that the fossil record is nice, but it is not necessary to prove evolution: each living thing bears the stamp of its kinship to everything else in its DNA.
• 

  unshackled

  Related to Nickolas' post above, this is an interesting article...

  NASA: asteroids ‘chemical factories’ for extra-terrestrial DNA productionhttp://www.smartplanet.com/blog/smart-takes/nasa-asteroids-8216chemical-factories-for-extra-terrestrial-dna-production/18302
• 

  Nickolas

  Very cool, unshackled.

  How are you liking that?

  Odd, but I thought I had already answered your question, simon17, but I see it is not here. Hmmm. Anyway, I'm just into the book and will reserve final comment on it for later.
• 

  3Mozzies

  Great 'new correct' cover processor.

  When I saw it, I thought of the following cover idea:

  

  3M
• 

  RayPublisher

  OMG THE ATHEISTS OF JWnet are acting up (out?) again lol... Some of us have managed to still keep our faith in a creator despite the WTO but to each his own.

  And I looooove seeing magazine covers being spoofed tweaked or messed up so thank you for 'dat.
• 

  Scott77

  Never in my life will I ever believe in their persuation. The WTS's 'logical reasoning' has nomore force and appeal for me. The WTS is not a scientist agency and many of the authors are high scholar graduates. How Iam going to believe them?

  Scott77