Evolution theory relies on a lot of unproveable assumptions... There are holes you can drive buses through in evolution theories - Julia Orwell
For example?
Public talk today on evolution today - real doozy
by Comatose 41 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
cofty
-
Tiktaalik
Ok Julia - their isn't two scientific sides battling it out on either side of the Darwinian divide as you say. There is a scientific side that uses solid reasoning backed up by observation and experiment on one side, and superstitious nonsense on the other.
If, as you claim you have studied evolution, then you need to have another go. Your comments reveal that you have failed to grasp the simplest tenants of evolution.
-
prologos
One would have to hear the talk or see the outline to establish what the slant of the speaker was.
Tying evolution to Hitler and Stalin are cheap, or a sheep's way to forestall any reasoning thought.
Of course the nazi, or more precisely: German imperialistic/revenge thinking had the idea of survival of the fittest, best adapted, as a justification for their method. But they had their own RCC concordat, nordic mythology, destiny religious beliefs.
The Soviets dabbeld in evolution with their genetic "research" pavlov dogs, breeding of dogma into offspring and the like, but as
Julie or Well brings out: there are serious arguments and research still to be done to come to better understandings.
The Adolf and Joe sta tement was to keep the jw audience re-enforcing their prejudices.
Our day will come.
-
Comatose
Julia, I appreciate your comments. Like you I've tried researching everything to find an answer. Consider this, evolution is now a scientific fact. Even most dubs would without knowing it agree when they say that the diverse animal life on our planet came from a small selection that Noah took on the ark. Evolution doesn't address what caused life, simply how life works. It is possible in my view to believe in a god if you choose while still acknowledging the facts that prove evolution. Just my thoughts on the matter. Anyways, more on the talk.
you may doubt it, but most of those are direct quotes. I didn't try to make him look dumber. He said Hitler was an evolutionist as proven by his trying to make a supreme survival of the fittest race... It's the blending of tiny bits of truth with common scare tactics and prejudices that anger me. "Them evolutionists say we's all a bunch of monkeys! Well I don't know bout you, but I ain't no monkey!!!" (I added this, but it was his general tone, haha)
-
cofty
He said Hitler was an evolutionist as proven by his trying to make a supreme survival of the fittest race...
Evolution describes how things are - not how they ought to be.
Social Darwinism is a perversion.
-
bohm
Hey i just got an idea! Turns out Hitler also believed Zyklon B killed jews; clearly this demonstrate the cellular respiratory cycle and cyanide chemistry must both be false and dangerous teachings
-
punkofnice
Yet again the WBT$ bifurcated thinking is hammered into the R&F's brains.
Followed by a watchtower 'study(R)' that does the same thing.
No wonder I felt that I didn't fit in the WBT$ cult!!
Black and white thinking prevails in the Kingdom Hell.
-
Julia Orwell
To those who think I have no clue about evolution: I took it in with my mother's milk, and have dedicated a lot of time to it recently. There are many takes on what actually happened in the history of life on earth, and I suppose I was wrong in depicting it as a two sided argument.
Molecular biology is a discipline that spawns scientists who believe in some sort of theistic start to life because of the huge improbabilities involved, for instance the fact that to make an enzyme the protein needs to undergo seven simultaneous mutations or folds, of exactly the right type. The chance of this happening randomly is 10 to the power of 77 at a conservative estimate. Things in molecular biology like this make me think more was involved than natural selection. You could call this a bus sized hole. Also the fact that no one can actually prove God exists. So yes, my worldview has gaps and I'm working on them. An intellectually honest person considers evidence and different perspectives, and as an atheist past and Christian present, I've been and am doing this.
There are all sorts of wonderful things scientists have discovered that refute 'creationism' and I certainly don't dismiss these. I know, coming from a family of atheists that they can be,just as dogmatic as theists. I've seen my mother turn into a screaming mad woman when I've tried to discus other views.
From my perspective whatever theory you look at has problems and assumptions. I am educated enough to know that, but also educated enough to know I don't know everything. I'm not some born-in who was denied the ability to think at a young age. Even when I converted I never entirely gave up the ability to think, hence the reason I'm on this forum. Atheist or Christian or Muslim or whatever, I don't care what you believe as we're united by our humanity.
-
Captain Obvious
Oh god how did you do it?! Did anyone in the crowd look like they were listening to bullshit?
One good thing from a talk like that is how some might talk about it after... Allowing a chance to slip in some FACTS. Not an all out debate, just point out some holes in buddy's absolutely horrible lines of reasoning.
Don't all out say creation is horse shit, just plant a little seed. A dissonance seed haha
-
bohm
Julia Orwell:
Molecular biology is a discipline that spawns scientists who believe in some sort of theistic start to life because of the huge improbabilities involved, for instance the fact that to make an enzyme the protein needs to undergo seven simultaneous mutations or folds, of exactly the right type. The chance of this happening randomly is 10 to the power of 77 at a conservative estimate.
That the argument is wrapped into probabilities gives it a superficial sence of scientific credibility but its nonsence. The problem is that the computation does not take physical laws into account. Specifically, the enzyme is (postulated) to have an evolutionary history, and any computation of probability to rule that option (which is the only relevant one) out must take into account the probability of an evolutionary history.
In that sence the computation become a tautology: Assuming the enzyme came about by this particular null-model nobody ever proposed or design, we conclude it must have been by design.
Name any theory and i can rule it out by a similar false computation, i even bet i can get lower probabilities :-).