by unstopableravens 273 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
The above is the problem with radiometric dating and carbon dating.
You have to assume that something is 2+ millions of years old for it to work. That is why is it psuedo science.
So you have no idea what you are talking about..... It's pointless to talk to someone someone who is both so intellectually lazy and so determined to defend their lack of knowledge.
Just got back from long day and seem to be way behind.
Pterist - Creationist arguments are obviously welcome in a thread that is discussing the evidence for evolution and against creationism. Tammy's usual sermons about stuff the voices told her are not welcome. I'm sure you can see the difference if you try.
I'm surprised that you question how a thread on evolution will help JWs. Creationism is a Watchtower doctrine. It is the one doctrine that we can prove with abundant evidence to be false. It doesn't depend on opinions or translations or interpretation. If an exiting JW will only look at the evidence objectively they will see for themselves that the Watchtower has lied to them about a literal Adam and Eve. In my opinion evolution is one of the most powerful weapons we have to expose TTATT.
Evolution is not to be confused with atheism.
Millions of believers accept the fact of evolution just as they accept that the earth is not at the centre of the universe. It took religious sorts a lot longer to accept that than it ought, but they finally got there. Now we still have a bunch of fundamentalist christians and Muslims who continue to deny evolution but they are in the minority.
Your suggestion that atheists should be banished to a dingy corner of the forum made me laugh. How about superstition and mythology gets banished leaving the board free for reason and rational thinking?
James Brown - I can no longer count how many times it has been explained to you that C14 is not used for dating ancient rocks. Its disappointing that you are raising objections when you are only on page 2 of a 22 page document that will answer all your objections. Unlike the guys you like to copy-paste the author really knows his stuff. He also has a love and respect for the bible. Please keep going and if you have any questions feel free to ask. Its just silly to voice opinions about things you don't understand. In contrast to the bible, science is really hard. If you don't want to make the effort that's up to you but that means you don't get to have an opinion - well of course you do but any sensible person will ignore it.
Unstop - No there was nothing in the book I disagreed with. It is simple basic mainstream science and every statement is backed up with loads of evidence. Remember there is nothing in the book that depends on Dawkins. He is just explaining what every scientist knows. He has a talent for explaining difficult things and making it understandable.
Was there anything you disagreed with? If so what and why?
Creationist arguments are obviously welcome in a thread that is discussing the evidence for evolution and against creationism. Tammy's usual sermons about stuff the voices told her are not welcome.
No.
I left so that you could discuss the book, itself. If there is just a discussion about evolution/creationism, then I am not off topic at all... since my belief is a mixture of both. In such a discussion, you don't get to dictate who is or is not welcome.
Peace,
tammy
I didn't dictate Tammy, I voiced my objections.
If you have thoughts for or against the evidence presented in the book please share them.
Please keep the "special knowledge" you get from the voices for somewhere else. It got tedious a long time ago.
Have you read the book or one similar?
Your objections are noted. But I will post as I choose, within the forum guidelines, and not according to your objection. I have shared my thoughts on this thread. If you find them tedious, then by all means, overlook them.
No, I have not read this book. I said earlier in the thread that the comments were making me want to read it though. I think I take evolution of the species for granted. It made sense to me when I learned about it long ago, and that hasn't changed. But I should probably take note of the more up-to-date findings.
(I did study the adaptation of bacteria for some research I was doing on an unrelated issue... but i just searched the net for articles and studies related to it... again, this was a few years ago)
Peace,
tammy
Thats great tec...I look forward to you sharing what you have learnt about evolution through the adaptation of bacteria. And how it supports your understanding of evolution. THAT sounds interesting.
Given your ability to explain things well...it should be helpful to me and unstop and everyone reading this thread.
Given your ability to explain things well...it should be helpful to me and unstop and everyone reading this thread.
Um... are you being serious or teasing me, lol?
I doubt i can do this one any justice though. Like I said, its been a few years. I learned only enough to get the gist of things (writing science fiction... so I only needed to see how something was scientifically possible)
Okay... so... adaptation for survival of bacteria had to do with mutations. As the bacteria (bacterium?) replicate, various mutations occur in some of them, and sometimes those mutations allowed the bacteria to survive in a changing environment, then that strain survived, and passed those mutations on to the next generation. So on and so forth. I cannot remember what causes the mutations. I seem to recall that they are random.
If I am not mistaken (and I could be) adaptation works in a similar manner in higher organisms? Plus we have evidence of animals suited to survive their environments (sometimes growing to a size that suits their environment).
I know that evidence evolution/adaptation of the species includes DNA evidence as well. (So long as we are properly understanding what DNA is telling us)
So I might have mucked the above up, but that is what I can remember. I really do rely on the scientific community to explain what scientific evidence is telling them... I just do so with the knowledge that our understanding of evidence can be limited according to the tools and evidence at hand, and that the missing specifics, once found, might open up doors not previously considered.
Peace,
tammy
Amazing Tec, you believe in creation because of the testament of the Bible which is full of foolish garbage. For example they thought sickness is caused by demons. Even Jesus perpetuated this stupidity and he was supposed to be a teacher. Did he know or was he just as ignorant. If he knew it should be criminal that he allowed this to continue. Think of the poor sick people and their families that suffered becase jesus failed to clarify this.
Im not saying evolution has all the answers because i dont know enuff to comment. But i know i can say that it is more truthful than the lame simple understandings in the bible.
Um... are you being serious or teasing me, lol?..tec
LOL...both!
You are good at explaining things. I was also interested to know what you had learnt about it, since you say you did a study. And what your understanding of evolution is. Because I don't think I really know.
****how about superstition and mythology gets banished leaving the board free for reason and rational thinking****
Besides your opinion on what is superstition and mythology, my objection was made because thats exactly what you want to do. However, you go beyond banishing them to a corner but boast about how they are banned from this forum when they make you mad, and guess what ? you were right. ?
Go ahead and continue to demean those who have spiritual values, a house divided will not accomplish the goal and its intended mission of being Jehovahs-Withness.net
