chris tann,.
in your earlier post you seemed to be under the impression that genesis and science were somehow compatible .
however, the truth is the two are not reconcilable at all.
Caedes said:
If you cannot understand how adding a powerful creator god adds a hugely additional level of complexity to the natural universe then I don't know I can help you. We are not talking about maths we are talking about the concept. Of course any god sufficiently powerful to create universes has to be more complex than it's creation.
By complex do you mean composed of "many parts" (Dawkins type definition)
If so, What is the evidence that a supernatural God must be composed of "parts"???
we are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural .
selection to account for the complexity of life.
careful examination of the .
Mark
in a recent meeting with elders, an argument was used to the effect that jehovah has always [= throughout history] used, or operated through, an organization; therefore, the wts must be that organization today, since god must be using one.
naturally, i know what arguments i've used to counter that argument.
but i'm interested in hearing yours.
Mark
my father, who has alzheimers, is dying now (he's 85).
i saw him today - he weaves in and out.
hasn't recognized me for a long time but was usually glad for the company.
I'm sorry for what you are going through. A month and a half ago my dad passed on (he was 85 as well).
We lived together for the last 7 years. I'm thankful for time that we had together and that he was blessed to have his mind.
We were never JWs.
I am thankful that I was able to share about who Christ is, and what Christ did with my dad. Just as we had in the past we said goodby, -only this time it will be a little longer until we are reuinted.
My grandmother had alzheimers before she died. I think that they can know whats going on more than we realize.
you are in my prayers.
it has taken me almost 2 years to get to the bottom of the watchtower society rabbit hole.
being fully convinced that i was duped....i am still a little ashamed of myself for being so narrow minded.
i have vowed never to close off my mind like that again.
Are you implying that this is actually happening in regards to things like:
1. abiogenesis
Of course. The fact that we don't yet have a really good answer is proof of this. What it means is that hypotheses are being created all the time and discarded. The falsification goes on and on.
And does this "falsification" that "goes on and on" ever cause them to question abiogenesis itself ?
And is there evidence for your claim that "Science works tirelessly to falsify everything it knows--every theory is rigorously tested and as new understanding is gained, the process starts all over again. No theory is safe--" in regards to the overall (molecules to man), evolutionary version of history, or even merely the evolutionary mechanism of mutation/selection?
it has taken me almost 2 years to get to the bottom of the watchtower society rabbit hole.
being fully convinced that i was duped....i am still a little ashamed of myself for being so narrow minded.
i have vowed never to close off my mind like that again.
yes, just about every edition of nature and science has an article on evolution.
My question was not "do they have articles on evolution"? , But instead in responce to NC's claim that
Science works tirelessly to falsify everything it knows--every theory is rigorously tested and as new understanding is gained, the process starts all over again. No theory is safe--
Are you implying that this is actually happening in regards to things like:
1. abiogenesis,
2. The overall (molecules to man), evolutionary version of history.
3. or even merely the evolutionary mechanism of mutation/selection?
Are you saying that that "science" [i.e. the "evolutionary science community"] is really "tirelessly" trying to falsify them??
What is the evidence for this? For example do they publish any attempted falisifications?, or fund any attempted falsification experiments, or studies against any of these things?
it has taken me almost 2 years to get to the bottom of the watchtower society rabbit hole.
being fully convinced that i was duped....i am still a little ashamed of myself for being so narrow minded.
i have vowed never to close off my mind like that again.
Science works tirelessly to falsify everything it knows--every theory is rigorously tested and as new understanding is gained, the process starts all over again. No theory is safe--
Are you implying that this is actually happening in regards to things like:
1. abiogenesis,
2. The overall (molecules to man), evolutionary version of history.
3. or even merely the evolutionary mechanism of mutation/selection?
Are you saying that that "science" [i.e. the "evolutionary science community"] is really "tirelessly" trying to falsify them??
What is the evidence for this? For example do they publish any attempted falisifications?, or fund any attempted falsification experiments, or studies against any of these things?
No theory is safe-- if it were it would be religion. NC
So if hypothetically the overall naturalistic/evolutionary version of history has been made "safe" by its proponets , then its religion?
i am reading colossians 1:15-18, and understand it to mean that jehovah created jesus who then created all other things in the world, thus jesus crall things except for god who created him.
is this correct?
thanks in advance!.
i am reading colossians 1:15-18, and understand it to mean that jehovah created jesus who then created all other things in the world, thus jesus crall things except for god who created him.
is this correct?
thanks in advance!.
.
.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbswkmobrl8&feature=digest_sun.
me:
First of, ID doesn't prove God at all. what ID is struggling to show is that there must be intelligence behind earths biological life. If there's intelligence to be found then God is one of the valid options to consider. . .
2nd, Intelligent Design, does not offer any useful advancement & prediction on the application of science:"ID seeks to redefine science in a fundamental way that would invoke supernatural explanations, a viewpoint known as theistic science. It puts forward a number of arguments, the most prominent of which are irreducible complexity and specified complexity, in support of the existence of a designer.[4] The scientific community rejects the extension of science to include supernatural explanations in favor of continued acceptance of methodological naturalism,
If, God potentially is one of the "valid options" to consider, then shouldn't the "scientific community" not "reject" him even as an option?
