JW scientist banned from Institute's WebSite because of Creationistic Views

by GermanXJW 229 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  drwtsn32

  Macroevolution may, or may not be true.

  So do you believe in "microevolution?" "Macroevolution" is just "microevolution" at a larger scale. It is easier for people to accept "microevolution" because it's easier to comprehend small changes take place in a specie. Now extend "microevolution" over huge time periods and you end up with "macroevolution." It is not "intuitive" for humans to think on such large time scales, and there is no way you could reproduce something that takes tens of thousands of years in a lab. Some people will take this as evidence against "macroevolution."

  Check that URL I posted in my previous message. It does a fine job showing some of the transitional types that have been found in the fossil record, as well as explaining genetic anomolies that could only have been caused by evolution. Special creation would not have resulted in a mutant, non-functioning "Vitamin C" gene in primates/humans, for example.

  How many people really understand general relativity? Time not flowing at a constant rate is counterintuitive to most people. Yet most people don't have a hard time believing it... even before they know there have been tests to confirm time dilation.

  The real reason people have trouble accepting evolution is because of the implications: that God may only exist in our minds.
• 

  Jerry Bergman

  29+ Evidences for Macroevolution http://talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ Fine. Now read the other side please! (That is those posts that have not been banned or censored by those who do not want you to read the other side, the side that you will not normally get in the public schools) PS: the title of this thread is JW scientist banned from Institute's website because of Creationistic Views. And many on here may feel that banning his ideas is a good idea. Many do not want to read the other side and do not want others to read the other side as they claim it may confuse them.
• 

  Jerry Bergman

  Now extend "microevolution" over huge time periods and you end up with "macroevolution." Completely untrue as has been well documented (I am working on a paper on this).
• 

  drwtsn32

  Now read the other side please!

  You are stating/implying that I have not looked at the other side. Nothing is farther from the truth. Before I left the organization, I tried fervently to discredit evolution. I looked at all sorts of pro-creation web sites (Answers in Genesis comes to mind). But as you are advocating now, I did not want to look at only one side. I also looked at TalkOrigins and other pro-evolution sites.

  I'm sorry if you don't like my conclusion, but after weighing the evidence on both sides, evolution made much more sense. It took me a long time to come to that conclusion, and at life-changing consequences. It would have been easier for me to stay where I was... in the org, not rejected by my family, and believing in God/creation.
• 

  Jerry Bergman

  Check that URL I posted in my previous message. It does a fine job showing some of the transitional types that have been found in the fossil record, as well as explaining genetic anomolies that could only have been caused by evolution. Special creation would not have resulted in a mutant, non-functioning "Vitamin C" gene in primates/humans, for example. I did. These concerns have all been explained fairly well and the explinations for them would be more commonly known if the other side was more freely available.
• 

  Abaddon

  Jerry, you said;

  It is clear to me that you (as I have found is common among Darwinists) are only interested in putting down a group of people that you do not like and seem to hate (theists) and have no interest in learning from others who hold ideas different from you.

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/50144/3.ashx

  I responded;

  We have no less than two ad hom arguments, “are only interested in putting down a group of people that you do not like and seem to hate (theists)” and “have no interest in learning from others who hold ideas different from you”.

  The ad hom arguments are assumptive and untrue. Is your argument so weak Jerry, that you have to lie about those that disagree with it?

  Whilst some people may not like or hate theists, applying that to me is a joke; I love and live with a theist. Many evolutionists believe in god in some way, even if it isn’t in the guise of a creator deity. I have no problem with theists as people, whatever my feeling about the irresolvable nature of god’s existence and the inherent illogic nature of this when viewed with the characteristics of god in mind, as described in certain traditions.

  I do have a problem with an overly literalistic interpretation of scripture that seeks to validate the Universe’s origin as it was imagined by a human some thousands of years ago, even if this requires selective vision and brute force. But I don’t even ‘hate’ such people; I’m baffled and bemused by them, yes, but hate? Evidence please.

  As for “no interest in learning”, have you any evidence for this claim? I have virtually begged you to respond to questions I have raised regarding your beliefs. If finding fault with your beliefs regarding the origin and development of life, and giving you detailed reasons why I find fault is “no interest in learning”, then you have no interest in learning from me by your own definition.

  You've not responded to those specific points in that thread.

  I feel I've proven the statements you make are lies, lies are nasty, QED.

  Anticipating the inevitable I should point out that whilst I have said various things about various people, I think you'll find that they are bourne out by the evidence; for example, I do say you lie above, but that's because you do.
• 

  drwtsn32

  Microevolution vs Macroevolution:

  http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html

  Creationists love the macro/micro evolution debate. I think it's a fallacy to believe one is true and the other is not.
• 

  Jerry Bergman

  Must reading (I am half way through the book)!! Below is a review from a WebSite on science and such The extraordinary story of why fewer and fewer scientists are atheists " God is dead" -- or so scientists used to tell you. For decades, religion and science have been regarded as mutually incompatible. But little by little, that is changing -- as the data that scientists collect about physics, biochemistry, genetics, information theory and neuroscience contains ever more compelling evidence that only a Designer could have made life possible. In By Design: Science and the Search for God, prize winning science writer Larry Witham tells the whole fascinating story. Witham explains how scientists are coming to realize that materialist "laws" of evolution are insufficient for explaining the subtleties of how life developed -- and how cutting-edge research now points inexorably to the fact that life was brought about through fine-tuning by a careful Planner. He explores two key movements involved in this revolutionary development: the "science and religion dialogue," which stretches from the laboratories of Nobel Prize winners to the halls of the Vatican; and the intelligent design movement, which has sent chills up the spines of the Darwinian ideologues in the scientific and public education establishments by successfully reviving a natural theology of design
  Witham profiles some of the courageous scientists who have dared to question science's great atheist dogma and follow the evidence of God's existence. He summarizes the scientific developments that have made this dramatic new dialogue possible. In the process, he shows in By Design how what was once a battleground between faith and science is becoming a meeting ground. Larry Witham reveals how scientists have begun realizing that God exists:

  • Key discoveries that shook the Darwinian scientific establishment to its foundations
  • How some of Darwin's most basic ideas, although taken for granted by scientists worldwide, actually remain unproven
  • Fred Hoyle, the famous British astrophysicist: the scientific discovery that he admitted years later had seriously shaken his atheism
  • Public schools: how they have dropped the ball completely and given up teaching accurately about evolution and creation

  and more... Right now, the Townhall.com Bookservice is offering By Design: Science and the Search for God at a 20% discount. You won't want to miss it.
• 

  drwtsn32

  Maybe people would be more willing to look at the creationist side if it didn't require belief in a God that by definition cannot be proven, or strict adherence to a book written by man.

  The problem I have with creation is that it doesn't follow science. The conclusion is fixed (that God/whatever created everything). Facts that would not lead to this conclusion are discredited.

  Science works in the opposite fashion. Evidence is gathered and a theory is formed that fits all available evidence. When new evidence is found that does not fit the current theory, the theory is adjusted so that it makes sense when considering all evidence. If the theory cannot be adjusted to fit all evidence, it is thrown out and a new theory is developed.
• 

  Abaddon

  (That is those posts that have not been banned or censored by those who do not want you to read the other side, the side that you will not normally get in the public schools)

  Jerry, what posts that have been banned or censored? I explained to you previously that posts are dropped by the server sometimes, sometimes parts of posts are lost - had it happen to me today. At the time I thought it was funny you were such a fantasist or so paranoiac you thought this was banning or censorship. Look, Thi Chi is way funnier than you, don't try to compete, he's a star.