Anders,
Brilliant. Thank you.
Thank you!
Doug
Doug Mason
JoinedPosts by Doug Mason
-
9
Looking for a quote by Francis Crick
by Doug Mason inpage 21 of the watchtower’s 2010 brochure, “the origin of life” says of the biologist.
“francis crick … decided that dna is far too organized to have come about through undirected events”.. i cannot find this quotation being made in writing by crick himself.. the wts’s brochure refers to the book, “the search for extraterrestrial intelligence – a philosophical inquiry”, by david lamb but it is not clear to me that the brochure is saying this view by crick is being cited in lamb's book.. where will i be able to read this statement being made by francis crick?.
and while we are looking at that wts brochure, page 16 makes some interesting claims about teaspoons.
-
-
-
9
Looking for a quote by Francis Crick
by Doug Mason inpage 21 of the watchtower’s 2010 brochure, “the origin of life” says of the biologist.
“francis crick … decided that dna is far too organized to have come about through undirected events”.. i cannot find this quotation being made in writing by crick himself.. the wts’s brochure refers to the book, “the search for extraterrestrial intelligence – a philosophical inquiry”, by david lamb but it is not clear to me that the brochure is saying this view by crick is being cited in lamb's book.. where will i be able to read this statement being made by francis crick?.
and while we are looking at that wts brochure, page 16 makes some interesting claims about teaspoons.
-
-
Doug Mason
There are two sentences in the brochure that relate to Francis Crick.
“Francis Crick, a scientist who helped to discover DNA’s double-helix structure, decided that this molecule is far too organized to have come about through undirected events. He proposed that intelligent extraterrestrials may have sent DNA to the earth to help get life started here.[26]” TOL, page 21
I can now see that the second sentence relates to Endnote 26, but I cannot see anything in Lamb’s book which relates to the first sentence. Thank you for making it possible for me to search Lamb’s book. That is invaluable. There is no appearance of “undirected” in the book and the appearances of the words “organized” and “events” are not relevant.
I can see Creationist sites making this same attribution to Crick, and perhaps he did write this, but theses sites do not give me the location where Crick wrote that statement. He was obviously a prolific writer.
====================
BTW. Does anyone know if this is the complete article (written in 1993 but ignored by Lamb):
-
9
Looking for a quote by Francis Crick
by Doug Mason inpage 21 of the watchtower’s 2010 brochure, “the origin of life” says of the biologist.
“francis crick … decided that dna is far too organized to have come about through undirected events”.. i cannot find this quotation being made in writing by crick himself.. the wts’s brochure refers to the book, “the search for extraterrestrial intelligence – a philosophical inquiry”, by david lamb but it is not clear to me that the brochure is saying this view by crick is being cited in lamb's book.. where will i be able to read this statement being made by francis crick?.
and while we are looking at that wts brochure, page 16 makes some interesting claims about teaspoons.
-
-
Doug Mason
THANK YOU! THANK YOU!
I am so fortunate to have such good and knowledgeable friends.
Doug
-
9
Looking for a quote by Francis Crick
by Doug Mason inpage 21 of the watchtower’s 2010 brochure, “the origin of life” says of the biologist.
“francis crick … decided that dna is far too organized to have come about through undirected events”.. i cannot find this quotation being made in writing by crick himself.. the wts’s brochure refers to the book, “the search for extraterrestrial intelligence – a philosophical inquiry”, by david lamb but it is not clear to me that the brochure is saying this view by crick is being cited in lamb's book.. where will i be able to read this statement being made by francis crick?.
and while we are looking at that wts brochure, page 16 makes some interesting claims about teaspoons.
-
-
Doug Mason
Page 21 of the Watchtower’s 2010 brochure, “The Origin of Life” says of the biologist
“Francis Crick … decided that DNA is far too organized to have come about through undirected events”.
I cannot find this quotation being made in writing by Crick himself.
The WTS’s brochure refers to the book, “The Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence – A Philosophical Inquiry”, by David Lamb but it is not clear to me that the brochure is saying this view by Crick is being cited in Lamb's book.
Where will I be able to read this statement being made by Francis Crick?
======
And while we are looking at that WTS brochure, page 16 makes some interesting claims about teaspoons. It points to Endnote 21.. However, Endnote 21 does not contain many of the words at page 16
The following words do not appear in the article listed as Endnote 21: dense, information, teaspoonful, instructions, building, 350, humans, alive, today, seven, billion, people, living, earth, barely, make, film, teaspoon.
So where did the author get his ideas from?
Doug
-
33
Why did Jesus piddle around for 40 days in the wilderness?
by nowwhat? inafter all he only had 3 and half years to perform his ministry so every day counted.
instead of witnessing to satan couldn't he have made better use of his time reaching as many people as possible?
just using some jdub reasoning on the matter..
-
-
Doug Mason
My views on the 40 days testing of Jesus by Satan will initially appear radical. I believe it is a parable with messages to their local, immediate hearers.As with any Scripture, our minds have to be transported to the times when they were being written, taking note of every local aspect.
In the story of Jesus' 40-day testing, Jesus and Satan reason with one another in a very gentlemanly manner, using Scriptures in the same manner as any good duelling Jews would. (It was written by Jews about a Jew.)
https://jwstudies.com/Is_Awake_accurate_about_Messiah_s_anointing.pdf
Doug
-
33
Why did Jesus piddle around for 40 days in the wilderness?
by nowwhat? inafter all he only had 3 and half years to perform his ministry so every day counted.
instead of witnessing to satan couldn't he have made better use of his time reaching as many people as possible?
just using some jdub reasoning on the matter..
-
-
Doug Mason
smiddy3,
Going by the Synoptics, his ministry could have lasted 12 months or shorter. John's Gospel alone has Jesus going to Jerusalem on three annual occasions. I do not have any details at hand. I read this a short while ago and when I come across it again, I will share it with you.
Doug
-
33
Why did Jesus piddle around for 40 days in the wilderness?
by nowwhat? inafter all he only had 3 and half years to perform his ministry so every day counted.
instead of witnessing to satan couldn't he have made better use of his time reaching as many people as possible?
just using some jdub reasoning on the matter..
-
-
Doug Mason
What makes you think Jesus preached for three and a half years?
Doug
-
14
To Active JW's Who Think Outside the Box: 2 Thessalonians 2:11, 12 Reconsidered...
by MADMARY inwatchtower society “contradicts” the bible – where and why?.
god's word certainly warns anyone who would dare, or be so audacious to deliberately change, twist or distort his holy message of truth by saying:.
“5 every saying of god is refined.
-
-
Doug Mason
The text of the Hebrew Scriptures was in a constant state of flux, to the point that no one knows what was originally written ('autographs'). Scribes were more than just copiers, they were not averse to changing (redacting) it to suit their own beliefs. By the time the Masoretes fixed the text, they set a corrupted text in concrete (Emanuel Tov).
No one knows what the writers of the NT originally wrote ('autographs').
There are differences between the various texts of the OT (LXX, Symmachus, MT, etc., etc.) and also with the texts of the NT (Erasmus' Textus Receptus; Westcott-Hort, Nestle-Aland, etc.).
There is any number of "the" Bible: Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Ethiopian, Syrian, Jewish (Tanakh), Protestant, etc., etc.
Those texts employed to justify the Bible as "God's Word" were written many centuries before any Bible existed. Besides, that's circular reasoning -- to use a text from within the Bible to "prove" the Bible.
Read:
Kloppenborg, John S., Newman, Judith H., editors. Editing the Bible: Assessing the Task Past and Present (June 15, 2012). Society of Biblical Literature
Müller, Reinhard; Pakkala, Juha; Romeny, Bas ter Haar. Evidence of Editing: Growth and Change of Texts in the Hebrew Bible (2014). Society of Biblical Literature
-
2
Further thoughts on "The Origin of Life" booklet
by Doug Mason inin my previous thread on “the origin of life”, i expressed my concern that endnotes [1]a, [2]a, and [7]a, are not referenced within the body of the text.
this is also true for endnotes [25]a, [39]a, [39]b, [39]c, and [51]a.. i have a hypothesis which, although strange, is feasible: each of these endnotes is an endnote (or footnote) of the prior endnote.
for example endnote [1]a is actually the endnote/footnote to endnote 1, not to the main text.
-
-
Doug Mason
There are generic issues that affect the nature of the brochure. The WTS always starts from its position, with the conclusion it is determined to reach. It then seeks support, whether this is through the use of selective Biblical texts or even through the misrepresentation or mistranslation of Scriptural texts. I do not accept this practice, but nevertheless it is acknowledged that this was the process used by writers of the New Testament. These people, such as the Gospel writers and Paul, had come to conclusions about Jesus Christ and they then “searched the scriptures”. Matthew is notorious for the way Hebrew Scriptures texts were misapplied.
Because the WTS operates this way, in seeking support for a predetermined conclusion, they are vehemently opposed to Higher Criticism, which for me is the only way to understand the Biblical writings. A true scientist looks at all of the evidence and then creates hypotheses leading to conclusions (“theories”). That is the way Higher Criticism operates, termed “exegesis”. The WTS, however, does not do this, and I classify their methodology as “eisegesis” and as “begging the question” (look up the true meaning of that expression).
======
It seems to me that because the Biblical account links creation with fully formed beasts and humans, this forces the brochure’s inability to make the distinction between the creation of life and the subsequent development of living beings.
“The more that scientists discover about life, the less likely it appears that it could arise by chance. To sidestep this dilemma, some evolutionary scientists would like to make a distinction between the theory of evolution and the question of the origin of life. But does that sound reasonable to you?” (The Origin of Life?, page 12)
Yes, that sounds absolutely reasonable to me, Mister Watchtower. So are we now determining “truth” on what sounds “reasonable”?
The scientists discussed in the brochure accept Evolution. But each scientist has a different view on the mechanism that gave rise to the presence of life on planet Earth. Yes, it is most reasonable to separate the origin of life on Earth from the subsequent development.
======
Let us accept for one fleeting moment that life commenced on Earth because of the actions by a supernatural energy. Some give this energy the term “God”, or “Gods”. Questions that quickly flow include:
1. Who created this energy?
2. Is this supernatural energy comprehensible in human terms?
3. How many sources of supernatural energy exist? How do we know? Why?
-
2
Further thoughts on "The Origin of Life" booklet
by Doug Mason inin my previous thread on “the origin of life”, i expressed my concern that endnotes [1]a, [2]a, and [7]a, are not referenced within the body of the text.
this is also true for endnotes [25]a, [39]a, [39]b, [39]c, and [51]a.. i have a hypothesis which, although strange, is feasible: each of these endnotes is an endnote (or footnote) of the prior endnote.
for example endnote [1]a is actually the endnote/footnote to endnote 1, not to the main text.
-
-
Doug Mason
In my previous Thread on “The Origin of Life”, I expressed my concern that Endnotes [1]a, [2]a, and [7]a, are not referenced within the body of the text. This is also true for Endnotes [25]a, [39]a, [39]b, [39]c, and [51]a.
I have a hypothesis which, although strange, is feasible: each of these Endnotes is an Endnote (or Footnote) of the prior Endnote. For example Endnote [1]a is actually the Endnote/Footnote to Endnote 1, not to the main text. This would mean that each is provided without reason or explanation.
======
The key to understanding the brochure, “The Origin of Life” (whose name is a parody of Charles Darwin’s epic work), lies with two pairs of paragraphs on pages 13 and 22. The first of the paragraphs opens with “What do scientists claim?” while the following paragraph opens with “What does the Bible say?” Scientists only make “claims”, they only say what they “believe”, whereas the Bible “says”. The Bible is the authority.
The author therefore only needs to debunk scientists’ “claims” without having to provide an equivalent forensic examination of the Bible (let alone explain why they use the Christendom Protestant Bible). All the author has to do is keep throwing darts at scientists, while at the same time make full use of their scientific knowledge to show that “what the Bible says is scientifically accurate” (page 30).
Since the author starts with the position that the Bible is the authoritative source, there is no need to draw on the support of any Creation scientist. To be seen to be aligned with Evangelicals, in any case, would be somewhat embarrassing, to say the least. Therefore, at the outset the author distances the brochure from “religious groups who want to have creation taught in schools” (page 3)
These predispositions set the brochure’s parameters: Use science and the Bible to attack scientists, all the while keeping well clear of all other religions that defend Biblical authority on creation.
======
Apart from the nebulous process described at the start of this piece, the author’s methods of citing and representing sources are illustrated on page 21:
“More recently, noted philosopher Antony Flew, who advocated atheism for 50 years, did an about-face of sorts. At 81 years of age, he began to express a belief that some intelligence must have been at work in the creation of life. Why the change? A study of DNA. When asked if his new line of thought might prove unpopular among scientists, Flew reportedly answered: ‘That’s too bad. My whole life has been guided by the principle … [to] follow the evidence, wherever it leads’.” (Associated Press Newswires, “Famous Atheist Now Believes in God,” by Richard N. Ostling, December 9, 2004).
The article is accessible at: http://s8int.com/Godexists.html and it shows that the full quotation is actually: “If his belief upsets people, well ‘that’s too bad,’ Flew said. ‘My whole life has been guided by the principle of Plato’s Socrates: Follow the evidence, wherever it leads’.” “I’m thinking of a God very different from the God of the Christian and far and away from the God of Islam, because both are depicted as omnipotent Oriental despots, cosmic Saddam Husseins,” he said. “It could be a person in the sense of a being that has intelligence and a purpose, I suppose.” …
A different article shows what the brochure means with “an about-face of sorts”:
“To make things perfectly clear, he told me: ‘I understand why Christians are excited, but if they think I am going to become a convert to Christ in the near future, they are very much mistaken.’ … Flew is not worried about impending death or post-mortem salvation. ‘I don’t want a future life. I have never wanted a future life,’ he told me. He assured the reporter for The Times: ‘I want to be dead when I’m dead and that’s an end to it.’ He even ended an interview with the Humanist Network News by stating: ‘Goodbye. We shall never meet again’.” (http://evidenceforchristianity.org/michael-flew-world-famed-atheist-now-believes-in-god/ ). In Flew’s book, available for download at https://www.difa3iat.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/There-is-a-God.pdf , pages 74-75 he explicitly credits DNA for his change. He died aged 84.