hooberus

Joined

• started 119 topics
• posted 2,517 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by hooberus

• 
  8

  Creationism is...evolving?

  by nvrgnbk in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  oh, the beautiful irony.. .

  opponents of evolution are adopting new strategyby laura beilpublished: june 4, 2008dallas opponents of teaching evolution, in a natural selection of sorts, have gradually shed those strategies that have not survived the courts.

  over the last decade, creationism has given rise to creation science, which became intelligent design, which in 2005 was banned from the public school curriculum in pennsylvania by a federal judge.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hooberus

  And the evolutionists even claim that universities (and students, and the states, etc. etc.) will suffer permanent damage if evolution [positive evidence only] onlyism is not strictly adhered to.

  Booberus,

  The damage is that a university that gives way to magical thinking is as much use as a chocolate teapot. Who would you want working on a new vaccine? Someone with a good knowledge of evolutionary theory and the effects that has on viruses or someone whose university decided to cut back on the science in deference to magical thinking. Of course kowtowing to people who do not understand science is damaging to universities and it's students.
  

  So presenting weakness of evolution (in addition to the positive evidence presented) is "magical thinking", that will diminish "knowledge of evolutionary theory" ?

  Of course all you need is some empirical evidence that contradicts evolutionary theory, if you can afford to build a "museum" I'm sure you could fund some research into dis-proving evolution. The advantage you have is that evolutionary theory makes predictions about the world around us, it is a positive testable theory. After all if you are correct there must be a wealth of data out there that proves all those scientists wrong?

  For a detailed response to this claim see the book "The Biotic Message" http://saintpaulscience.com/contents.htm
• 
  8

  Creationism is...evolving?

  by nvrgnbk in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  oh, the beautiful irony.. .

  opponents of evolution are adopting new strategyby laura beilpublished: june 4, 2008dallas opponents of teaching evolution, in a natural selection of sorts, have gradually shed those strategies that have not survived the courts.

  over the last decade, creationism has given rise to creation science, which became intelligent design, which in 2005 was banned from the public school curriculum in pennsylvania by a federal judge.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hooberus

  (despite the fact that such objections can even be found documented in even the "mainstream" science literature)

  Let's see what you got.

  For many detailed references documenting such issues (from evolutionist sources) see publications such as The Biotic Messagehttp://saintpaulscience.com/contents.htm , the appendix to Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Human Genome (both available from www.creationresearch.org), as well as other evolutionist references in the technical creationist literature.
• 
  8

  Creationism is...evolving?

  by nvrgnbk in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  oh, the beautiful irony.. .

  opponents of evolution are adopting new strategyby laura beilpublished: june 4, 2008dallas opponents of teaching evolution, in a natural selection of sorts, have gradually shed those strategies that have not survived the courts.

  over the last decade, creationism has given rise to creation science, which became intelligent design, which in 2005 was banned from the public school curriculum in pennsylvania by a federal judge.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hooberus

  Starting this summer, the state education board will determine the curriculum for the next decade and decide whether the “strengths and weaknesses” of evolution should be taught. The benign-sounding phrase, some argue, is a reasonable effort at balance. But critics say it is a new strategy taking shape across the nation to undermine the teaching of evolution, . . .

  Evolutionists want to limit even the teaching of "evolution onlyism" to the even more restrictive "evolution [positive evidence only] onlyism".
  

  But critics say it is a new strategy taking shape across the nation to undermine the teaching of evolution, a way for students to hear religious objections under the heading of scientific discourse.

  And of course they label any criticism as "religious objections" (despite the fact that such objections can even be found documented in even the "mainstream" science literature).

  Views like these not only make biology teachers nervous, they also alarm those who have a stake in the state’s reputation for scientific exploration. “Serious students will not come to study in our universities if Texas is labeled scientifically backward,” said Dr. Dan Foster, former chairman of the department of medicine at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas.

  And the evolutionists even claim that universities (and students, and the states, etc. etc.) will suffer permanent damage if evolution [positive evidence only] onlyism is not strictly adhered to.
• 
  19

  Can genesis be reconciled with science?

  by inkling in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  ok, so a recent thread about the latest wt antiscience content (found here: http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/159423/1.ashx).

  has got me thinking.... it does seem really hard to hold active trust in the bible as the word of.

  god without being leery of science.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hooberus

  First, the order is hopelessly shuffled- In the fossil record:

  Birds appear late on the world stage, well after land animals and "creeping things"
  Seed plants appear well AFTER both sea and land life
  Fruit plants and grasses don't appear until after birds

  The problem with this is that that fossil record is not a record of the creation week of life, but instead a record of the later destruction of life (Genesis 6-9). Hense, there is no need for it to allign with the creation week sequence.

  Further answers to other anti-Genesis claims (similar to the ones on the first post) can be found in resources available from: http://www.creationresearch.org

  For some of the difficulties in reconciling evolution to science see http://saintpaulscience.com/contents.htm (available from http://www.creationresearch.org)
• 
  6

  ISRAEL FINKELSTEIN INTERVIEW IN NEW SCIENTIST

  by badboy in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  professor of archaelogy at tel aviv university, he believes that many ot stories likeexodus and jericho didn't happen are fiction.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hooberus

  http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3050#falsehistory
• 
  39

  Noah's ark - Can't believe I once actually thought it was true

  by sam_sane_now in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  when i was a jw i didn't even question that the noah's ark story might not be true.

  i didn't realise that it wasn't achievable for a handful of people to gather literally millions of animals - two of each kind - and fit them into a boat where they would all survive for many days.

  i didn't think about the fact that if the highest mountain was covered with water then how could plant life like trees and flowers come to exist again, especially so soon after, with the raven grabbing an olive leaf was it?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hooberus

  If you want science disputing the flood, here's science. Every possible argument for the flood is thoroughly demolished by our good friend Alan Feuerbacher:

  http://corior.blogspot.com/

  Scroll down to the flood articles.

  Farkel

  On the arcticle: http://corior.blogspot.com/2006/02/part-3-where-did-water-come-from.html Alan F. spends most of his time arguing against things that virtually no informed creationist believes. If you remove these then isn't much left.
• 
  53

  CREATIONIST TEACHERS

  by badboy in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  1 in 8 high school teachers in usa teach creationism and id as valid science.. 16% of teachers beliece humans were created less than 10,000 years ago.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hooberus

  But - if evolution was falsified by DNA sequencing not showing evidence of common descent, if the fossil record didn't show evidence of gradually progressive complexity in species through time (that's a simplified statement, but accurate enough here), if animal species were scattered 'helter skelter' in the geologic column like rabbits found with dinosaurs, birds found before reptiles etc., if all dating methods didn't show evidence of a really old earth and universe, if there were no atavisms ("throwbacks"), no vestigial features, no signs of retroviral insertion points in DNA that must have occurred in a shared ancestor... To put it short, if the theory of evolution did not describe what we see in nature, then it would be falsified, and we'd have to look elsewhere for an explanation.

  The problem is that evolutionary theory is so flexible that evolutionists simply change it to prevent it from being falsified by any certain line of data. Often this results in evolution being retreated into unfalsifiability in the particular specific area. ReMine (who is not specifically a Bibilical creationist) documents several instances of this and concludes that evolution is now either falsified or unfalsifiable depending on how its defined. His book The Biotic Message should be read by anyone who really wishes to fully understand evolution: contents: http://saintpaulscience.com/contents.htm (available from www.creationresearch.org)

  That in and of itself would not mean everyone would have jumped on a literal reading of the Bible, but it would perhaps have become a story that was easier to swallow scientifically.

  For more on the Bible and science (see www.creationresearch.org)
• 
  53

  CREATIONIST TEACHERS

  by badboy in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  1 in 8 high school teachers in usa teach creationism and id as valid science.. 16% of teachers beliece humans were created less than 10,000 years ago.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hooberus

  My point is that if (as an evolutionist here stated) evolution (common descent) "throws a massive wrench into a literal interpretation of the Bible because it means that Adam was not created 6000 years ago as the first man, there was no original sin, no fall from grace, no global flood, and no point in Jesus' sacrifice", then perhaps many of the "creationist teachers" are merely uncomfortable parroting a one-sided indoctrination of it to their students, (many of whom hold to the above beliefs).
• 
  53

  CREATIONIST TEACHERS

  by badboy in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  1 in 8 high school teachers in usa teach creationism and id as valid science.. 16% of teachers beliece humans were created less than 10,000 years ago.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hooberus

  The problem for ID proponents, especially those who consider themselves scientists, is that they can't have their cake and eat it too. Either way, if a lightning bolt in a pool of muck or the hand of God first created life, evolution has been at work ever since. Some are satisfied with this, seeing evolution as a mechanism put into place by god, but it throws a massive wrench into a literal interpretation of the Bible because it means that Adam was not created 6000 years ago as the first man, there was no original sin, no fall from grace, no global flood, and no point in Jesus' sacrifice.

  So evolution is anti-religious (at least against or detrimental to somereligions).
• 

  ABIOGENESIS and the EVOLUTION DEBATE

  by hooberus in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  "evolution comprises all the states of development of the universe; the cosmic, biological, and human or cultural developments.

  attempts to restrict the concept of evolution to biology are gratuitous.

  life is a product of the evolution of inorganic matter, and man is a product of the evolution of life.".

• 

  hooberus

  "Evolution comprises all the states of development of the universe; the cosmic, biological, and human or cultural developments. Attempts to restrict the concept of evolution to biology are gratuitous. Life is a product of the evolution of inorganic matter, and man is a product of the evolution of life."

  Theodosius Dobzhansky Science, 155:409-415, 1967

  "The origin of life was necessarily the beginning of organic evolution and it is among the greatest of all evolutionary problems."

  George Gaylord Simpson opening sentence chapter 2 "The Meaning of evolution" 1949

  Today even specific "evolution books" such as "What Evolution Is" by Ernst Mayr have relatively lengthly sections on the origin of life (see chapter 3 of his book), with no demarcation between it and "evolution".

  And of course its either explicitly (or implicitly) included in evolution in many textbooks. (picture from yecheadquarters)

  Despite the above if a CREATIONIST mentions the issue in an evolution debate it the following frequently occurs- We are told that "it is not a part of evolution theory" or worse that we are guility if "dishonesty." The fact is that "evolution" can include many different things from the minimalist "any change in alle frequencies" to possibly also include things such as universal common ancestry, amphibians descending from fish, humans descending from ancient apes, even to the origin of life itself.) One of the real reasons for the insistence by many evolutionists today that it must be "excluded" is really in response to the scientific difficulties that have been revealed, and not to any empirical necessity that it be excluded as "not being a part of evolution".