seven006 Your first paragraph illustrates exactly why the study of apologetics is important! I have heard these concerns over and over and any basic apologetics course will answer them very well. The book "The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict" by Josh McDowell is a good introduction to the field (not without its mistakes and for laymen, thus oversimplifies, but a good start). Anyone who is serious about dealing with this issue (an excellent concern) must read this book.
Would some of us be better off as Witnesses?
by Jerry Bergman 118 Replies latest watchtower scandals
-
-
Jerry Bergman
Xander This raises another whole new can of worms. I do not accept neoDarwinism nor macroevolution. The scientific evidence is quite clear on this point. By the way, I teach biology, biochemistry, molecular biology, anthropology, chemistry, and other sciences thus have covered this area in class and in my publications for over 35 years now. To go into this area will take pages and pages and if anyone is interested I could send articles on this topic.
Edited by - Jerry Bergman on 18 December 2002 10:48:15
Edited by - Jerry Bergman on 18 December 2002 10:49:36
-
Xander
But, just to be clear, you DO accept microevolution?
Since the evidence is quite clear on THAT....
And you then hold that no amount of small changes could change a species in any *significant* way?
...which is all the macroevolution requires?
-
Jerry Bergman
teenyuck I am glad things worked out for you (and I am in no position to condemn as I have made my share of mistakes). The fact is, the scientific literature has found that, in the long run, condoning living together before marriage is a mistake. We used to think that to live with someone before marriage would help to determine if the relationship would work. It turns out that, in the words of Dr. Stanley of the University of Denver and co-director the Martial and Family Studies department "If you want someone to marry, chose someone who won't live with you" They found in these cases that in general the commitment was lower , the divorce rate higher, and the marriage did not last for many other reasons. When I met my first wife I had no doubt that I wanted to marry her (and still have no doubt). When I left the Witnesses the marriage ended (we all know about that). When I met my second wife I also knew that I wanted to marry her and never wavered from this view. My first marriage would have worked out if it wasn't for the Witness problem. I did not need to live with her to know. A good friend lived with her husband for several years than married (now the marriage is on the rocks). Check out Dr. Stanley's work.
-
Farkel
Jerry,
: This may be your experience, but the experience of many millions of persons, including myself, is, clearly, the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the conclusion that God is active in the affairs of humans.
If so, he's certainly selective, then. Why does he allow little babies (by the countless millions) to starve to death, for starters, if he's so "active" in human affairs? Why does he allow many innocent victims, including entire civilizations to die from bacteria or virus'?
: Many persons have allowed their bitter experience with the Witnesses to blind themselves to objectively looking at all theistic world views.
I respect your statement about your own personal experience with theism, but you rather spoiled it with that ad hominem and straw man. If a "bitter" person and a "non-bitter" person delivered exactly the same argument, wouldn't the argument still be the same? If not, why not?
Christians in particular, tend to attack the messenger instead of the message.
Farkel
-
funkyderek
I do not accept neoDarwinism nor macroevolution
So let me get this straight. You don't understand how enjoyment of sex could evolve, but when it's explained to you, you simply state that you reject evolution anyway.
If you reject macroevolution then there's no way any such traits could evolve so the point is moot. If, however, you understand and accept the reality of the situation, then it's quite easy to construct a plausible robust scenario that explains human sexuality.
For those who do accept the overwhelming evidence for macroevolution and are interested in why humans find sex pleasurable I recommend Why is Sex Fun? by Jared Diamond.
-
funkyderek
They found in these cases that in general the commitment was lower the divorce rate higher, and the marriage did not last for many other reasons.
Is it necessarily a bad thing for a marriage not to last? Did this study take into account the probability that people who are liberal enough to live together before marriage are more likely to end a loveless joyless marriage rather than live out their lives in misery?
-
Jerry Bergman
Xander thanks for your comment! In response to But, just to be clear, you DO accept microevolution? Since the evidence is quite clear on THAT.... And you then hold that no amount of small changes could change a species in any *significant* way? ...which is all the macroevolution requires? I accept what the scientific empirical evidence supports. As there are at least 12 clear criteria that differentiate micro and macroevolution I would need evidence that supports the latter. One cannot simply assume that because micro has been documented that therefore if we "stretch it" we will get macro. They are two different things and require different mechanisms. If you know of evidence that supports macro let me know! I have been looking for 30 years (and don't claim mutations. No nwe information producing mutation has ever been proven).
Edited by - Jerry Bergman on 19 December 2002 8:55:49
-
144thousand_and_one
Christians in particular, tend to attack the messenger instead of the message. - - Farkel
I guess that means Farkel is probably a christian.
-
funkyderek
One cannot simply assume that because micro has been documented that therefore if we "stretch it" we will get macro.They are two different things and require different mechanisms
Where did you get that idea? Microevolution and macroevolution are exactly the same. Macroevolution is the inevitable result of microevolution, unless you're claiming that there is some limit to how many times microevolution can occur. To my knowledge, no such limit has been shown to exist.
See http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
Edited by - funkyderek on 19 December 2002 9:53:1