I mean, if you were gonna create something, wouldn't you give it what it needs to survive as best it can?
That sucks for 99.999% of species that have died out over the millions of year. Jesushovah should have thought that through a little better.
Common Misconceptions Re: Evolution
by cantleave 83 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
NewChapter
I am taking 2 anthropology courses right now, the first time since becoming a believer in evolution, and the study is absolutely fascinating. FIRST I've had to purge, and am still purging, misconceptions drilled into my head by the WT. The idea that a theory is a guess or an opinion was a hard one for me. So today I think i finally got it straight.
A hypothesis is an idea. From there every possible attempt is made to FALSIFY it. If they can't prove it wrong, it passes onto theory. There are no absolutes, because science is always learning new things---and theories get adjusted as new hypotheses are tested. We don't have all the details, but we have not proven evolution wrong yet.
With religion, no attempt is made to falsify---it is all excepted on faith and it is the facts that are suspect, not the belief. However if you apply the scientific method to the creation account, it crashes. It is very easily falsified. This is why creationism is not science--no real attempts are made to falsify it---yet that is the scientific method and it can't be science without it.
NC
-
-
PSacramento
thanks for your reply. I have to say, the following really made me chuckle: "I think you are putting a spin on Genesis that you feel comfortbale with". I don't think I am.I am not at all comfortable with the idea that Genesis should be taken as the writers meaning it literally. But that doesn't mean they didn't intend it that way.
I forgot the smiley face but I am glad you saw the humour in it :)
There are TWO stories of creation in Genesis, WHICH one is to be taken literal and concrete?
Remember, it isn't about taking something literal, we say things like, " Its so hot my skin is literally melting", but do we mean it or are we making a point?
Let's just be honest here. The Augustine "principle" is just a get-out-of jail free card. Christians interpret the Bible as literal, until science or history show that actually, the events reported could never have happened that way, or did not. Then out comes the "it was never meant to be taken literally, it is SYMBOLIC" etc, and the justification is.........a man who realised that some of the Bible was already under attack scientifically, and that it simply couldn't be defended as literal, and in order to survive it must be "symbolic." Seriously, Augustine makes this point - and where is the evidence that the WRITERS of the text felt that way about what they had written? Nowhere.
I mentioned Augustine because he shows that even 1600 years ago, there were those that saw it as literal and concrete and those that didn't.
Take the Adam and Eve story. Literal, or symbolic? According to Augustine, true. There was a real Adam and Eve. According to many Christians today, true. So.......now we have evolutionary scientists (not all, but a firm consensus) pointing to an "out-of-africa" hypothesis. Evidence, much of it credible, has been presented. And this evidence points to.....no Adam and Eve. No Middle Eastern garden. Just the gradual evolution of homo sapiens, then a migratory route out of Africa, after a severe climatic event, that led to the near-decimation of the species. So.....as the evidence mounts for that hypothesis, what of the Adam and Eve story? No longer literal? We now wheel out Augustine? And what of "original sin"? What of "the fall"? Jesus' sacrifice? Did the Bible writers suddenly never mean them to be taken literally?
Actually, we have no evidence that A Adam and AN Eve did not exist or that they did exist But we need to remember that the story of Adam and Eve have to do with the garden of eden and not "the rest of the world" per say. It may be that A&E were the "environmental factors" that spawn the homo offshot, it may be that Adam and Ever were real people and the first ones to "find" God.
In short, there is nothing in science that can prove that Adam and Eve ( or the two first fully homosapiens) never existed and there is some logic to the notion that they MAy have been real people.
I'm sure you seem what I'm getting at. It's all very........convienient. It doesn't really have any intellectual foundation. I would go so far as to say, it smacks of desperation. Beleive me, I would love to think that the writers of Genesis and so on never meant us to take their words literally. But there's very little evidence of that. And that isn't to my liking at all.
If we look at ancient writings, how much of it, outside of historical events that are worded as such, is written in a way that makes it seem "scientific" and "historical"?
More often it is poetic and story telling more than anything else.
Genesis is the story of creation and while it can be take literal ( God created the universe from nothing and the universe progressed in phases/eras) there is no reason to interpret it as CONCRETE ( 6 -24hr periods) and Augustine was quite simply warning those that decide to interpret things a certain way in genesis that God is not ONLY revealed in the bible, but in creation as well and that BOTH most be reconciled and if our interpretation is shown to be wrong by the universe, then it was our interpretation what was wrong.
-
EntirelyPossible
Remember, it isn't about taking something literal, we say things like, " Its so hot my skin is literally melting", but do we mean it or are we making a point?
Yes, but no one bases how they live their life on whether or not I may be speaking literally or using a metaphor. Jesushovah REALLY should have been a little clearer on those points. Like, Ezekiel appears to have been on some serious kick ass drugs. Or was Jesushovah just loading some seriously hardcore religion shit into his brain. Kind of important details when deciding if it really IS something to base your life on.
I mentioned Augustine because he shows that even 1600 years ago, there were those that saw it as literal and concrete and those that didn't.
You think that being way close to the actual event they might actually know what was concrete, or at least MORE concrete about Jesus. Even 25 years after him. But they didn't. You thing Jesushovah might do something to, you know, make that a little more clear if he cared.
Actually, we have no evidence that A Adam and AN Eve did not exist or that they did exist
We do know they (or any two "humans) did not spawn the human race. Science, baby!
It may be that A&E were the "environmental factors" that spawn the homo offshot, it may be that Adam and Ever were real people and the first ones to "find" God.
You think Jesushovah might want to be a little more clear on that since it's kind of important for the whole idea of atonement or ransom for original sin. Too bad he apparently doesn't care enough to say.
In short, there is nothing in science that can prove that Adam and Eve ( or the two first fully homosapiens) never existed and there is some logic to the notion that they MAy have been real people.
Yes, science can and does disprove the notion that somehow the first two fully formed homosapiens existed in ANY manner described in the bible. Homosapien DNA proves that we formed from multiple Homo variants interbreeding and evolving. Science definitely shows it was a gradual change over populations interbreeding and NOT two sapiens suddenly popping up and populating the world.
Seriously, PSac, you are worrying me. You used to seem like such a well balance Christian, lately you are getting very anti-science and starting to go a little off the deep end in an effort to defend untenable and indefensible positions like this one. Scaring me bro. Have faith in Jesus, come back down to reality...
-
james_woods
That sucks for 99.999% of species that have died out over the millions of year. Jesushovah should have thought that through a little better.
Well, that is pretty much the JW view if you consider the fact that they believe their god INTENTIONALLY made the dinosaurs extinct. A circuit overseer once told me that god created them just to provide petroleum.
Of course, they also believe that their god INTENTIONALLY extincted 99.999% of the human species in the flood, sparing only his eight favorites at the moment. I guess that took care of the near-human related species like the Neanderthals and Denisovans - except that the JWs think the flood occurred way too recently for that to be true.
Stories like this reveal that the god delusion is often just a simple human attempt to explain things that could not be understood at the time.
Back on the strict topic - I honestly think this is the best evolution/creationism thread I have ever seen on JWN - largely due to the OP, of course, but also to PSac for his intelligent creation inputs.
-
cantleave
A circuit overseer once told me that god created them just to provide
Dumbass CO!!!!!!! Didn't he know Dino's were put here to flatten the Earth!
-
james_woods
Dumbass CO!!!!!!! Didn't he know Dino's were put here to flatten the Earth!
Seriously - he said it publicly during the Saturday night special CO talk. I got to him afterward and told him that oil was NOT squished dinosaur guts.
He then - seriously - replied that the Sinclair Oil Company had a brontosaurus on their corporate logo. Yes, this was his childish proof.
I resigned as an elder (to him personally) the next day after the Sunday meetings, and that was the last circuit overseer I ever had to endure.
BTW - he asked me why I was resigning, and I said that I found that the society/GB had become too monolithic. He had to ask me what the word "monolithic" meant.
-
PSacramento
Seriously, PSac, you are worrying me. You used to seem like such a well balance Christian, lately you are getting very anti-science and starting to go a little off the deep end in an effort to defend untenable and indefensible positions like this one. Scaring me bro. Have faith in Jesus, come back down to reality...
Don't worry Bro, I am expressing possibilites and opinions and views for this discussion, that's all.
Like I said a few times already I agree with the theory of Evolution.
To me Genesis is simply an ancient creation story and Adam and Eve, the first people to become aware of God.
It was an ancient story for ancient man told in an ancient way.
Did the WHOLE of the human species decend from two people? No, I don't think so.
And I don't think that Genesis means to imply that, but means to state that the whole of "Israel" comes from them.
As for God being clearer on the origins of the universe, I would love to be a fly on the wall with God explaining evolution to some guy 1000's of year ago, since it seems to easy to explain to modern man.
;)
-
PSacramento
This seemed interesting, timing wise:
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=337937
EVOLUTION WATCH
Scientists' creed: We don't know
Challenge to Darwin questions why facts are flexible
Posted: August 26, 2011
12:35 am EasternBy Bob Unruh
© 2011 WNDThere apparently are three words on which some scientists' faith in evolution is based: We don't know.
That is a focal point of a widespread new campaign to raise awareness across America – and around the world – about the shifting underpinnings of evolution.
It's called Question Evolution!, and it is being run by Creation Ministries International, a worldwide ministry with offices in the U.S., Australia, Canada, New Zeland, Singapore, South Africa and Europe.
The campaign doesn't ask evolutionists to believe anything about creation; it just asks them for their explanation of it. And it encourages everyone to ask those questions.
For example, Question No. 12 in the pamphlet "15 Questions for Evolutions" wonders, "Why is evolutionary 'just-so' story-telling tolerated?"
The pamphlet explains, "Evolutionists often use flexible story-telling to 'explain' observations contrary to evolutionary theory. NAS (USA) member Dr. Philip Skell wrote, 'Darwinian explanations for such things are often too supple: Natural selection makes human self-centered and aggressive – except when it makes them altruistic and peacable. Or natural selection produces virile men who eagerly spread their seed – except when it prefers men who are faithful protectors and providers. When an explanation is so supple that it can explain any behavior, it is difficult to test it experimentally, much less use it as a catalyst for scientific discovery."
(Story continues below)
The campaign doesn't make it easy: Question No. 1 wonders, "How did life originate?"
"Evolutionist Professor Paul Davies admitted, 'Nobody knows how a mixture of lifeless chemicals spontaneously organized themselves into the first living cell.' Andrew Knoll, professor of biology, Harvard, said, 'We don't really know how life originated on this planet.'"
So just what did happen? Evolutionists?
Creation.com points out that a minimal cell needs several hundred proteins.
"Even if every atom in the universe were an experiment with all the correct amino acids present for every possible molecular vibration in the supposed evolutionary age of the university, not even one average-sized functional protein would form," the website explains.
Other questions for evolutionists:
- How did the DNA code originate?
- How did sex originate? (Asexual reproduction gives up to twice as much reproductive success ('fitness') for the same resources as sexual reproduction, so how could the latter ever gain enough advantage to be selected?)
- Why are the (expected) countless millions of transitional fossils missing?
- How do 'living fossils' remain unchanged over supposed hundreds of millions of years, if evolution has changed worms into humans in the same time frame?
- How did blind chemistry create mind/intelligence, meaning, altruism and morality?
- Where are the scientific breakthroughs due to evolution?
Regarding the last question, Creation.com notes, "Evolution actually hinders medical discovery. Then why do schools and universities teach evolution so dogmatically, stealing time from experimental biology that so benefits humankind?"
A video from ppsimmons promotes the campaign:
Others are signing on to help with the effort. Traditional Values Coalition President Andrea Lafferty said the campaign "is being actively pursued in the United States and internationally educating students about evolutionary falsehoods plus making students' anti-evolutionary sentiments visible."
"The fall of the atheistic Soviet Union and its ideology was brought about through everyday people publicly expressing their dissatisfaction," the statement continued. "This shows what a dramatic effect grassroots efforts can have against secular ideology."
The TVC organization speaks on behalf of more than 43,000 churches.
The campaign includes the "15 Questions" as well as shirts, caps, bags, mugs, stickers and badges that say "Question evolution!"
On the campaign website, a commenter joined the effort: "I am a lecturer in the physics department of … university. I put a few copies of the 'Creation' magazine in our tearoom. The next day I found it lying in the rubbish bin! I removed it, dusted it off and put it on the table again. The next day it was in the rubbish bin again! I dusted it off, and put it on the table, etc… This happened three days in a row!"
The lecturer said he eventually put articles on his office door, adjacent to the tearoom.
The campaign already has asked well over 300 Texas churches to participate. Texas is a key battleground for school curriculum, since the state buys more textbooks than any other state except California.
The issue has been getting more attention in recent months, the campaign said, with eight anti-evolution bills introduced by U.S. state legislatures this year alone.
Read more: Scientists' creed: We don't knowhttp://www.wnd.com/?pageId=337937#ixzz1XO45YNVj
