The confusion lies in the difference between a layman's definition of "theory," which is simply a best guess or unsubstantiated hypothesis, and a scientist's definition, which is, and this is from Carl Zimmer's excellent new textbook The Tangled Bank, "an overarching set of mechanisms or principles that explain a major part of the natural world...make sense of what would otherwise sem like an arbitrary, mysterious collection of data...[and is] supported by independent lines of evidence" (62). I think that last bit is the most important, IMHO.
Cadellin
JoinedPosts by Cadellin
-
33
Counting the errors in one section of the Origin of Life brouchure
by bohm infrom page 12:.
the theory of evolution tries to account for the origin of life on earth without the necessity of divine intervention.. .
false: simply plain false on both accounts.. however, the more that scientists discover about life, the less likely it appears that it could arise by chance.. false: author state conclusion which is not supported by the text.
-
-
-
33
Counting the errors in one section of the Origin of Life brouchure
by bohm infrom page 12:.
the theory of evolution tries to account for the origin of life on earth without the necessity of divine intervention.. .
false: simply plain false on both accounts.. however, the more that scientists discover about life, the less likely it appears that it could arise by chance.. false: author state conclusion which is not supported by the text.
-
-
Cadellin
Oh, and Old Hippie, there's not a "huge silence" on the origin question--in fact, the Gordons article quoted repeatedly in the Origin brochure as well as the Shapiro article from Scientific American, quoted in the first article of the brochure, both discuss recent research in abiogenesis. A few minutes of careful research online will reveal an abundance of info, though admittedly, there's not the numbers of scientists working in the field as in others. Why? One reason is the sheer weight of time and the convulsive changes that have occurred to the planet since then. It's difficult to research something when all the original material is gone. But that doesn't mean research isn't happening and hypotheses being formed and tested.
-
33
Counting the errors in one section of the Origin of Life brouchure
by bohm infrom page 12:.
the theory of evolution tries to account for the origin of life on earth without the necessity of divine intervention.. .
false: simply plain false on both accounts.. however, the more that scientists discover about life, the less likely it appears that it could arise by chance.. false: author state conclusion which is not supported by the text.
-
-
Cadellin
There is a huge silence on the Origin question, but an equally huge literature on the Evolution question.The theory of evolution rests on the notion that a long series of fortunate accidents produced life to start with.
CORRECT: That is what it is all about.
It then proposes that another series of undirected accidents produced the astonishing diversity and complexity of all living things.
Old Hippie: The Society perpetuates the strawman argument that evolution proceeds by "undirected accidents" or "blind chance." While chance plays a part in virtually everything, to ascribe evolution as resting upon that solely is simply false. Natural selection has been proven to be a dramatic, effective and, in some cases, astonishingly fast-acting design force, both in the lab and in nature. In fact, that was the whole point of Peter and Rosemary Grant's research on Darwin's finches--not to prove that somehow over the course of a few decades they'd turn into hippos but that environmental forces could produce--design, in fact--measurable changes in morphology. The theory of evolution rests on many things but "fortunate accidents" is not one of them.
I'd like to point out, as well, the use of the word "notion," which the Origin brochure uses repeatedly as a way of trivializing the hard science upon which modern biology rests, as if scientists spend their time following silly little sentiments unconnected with any real proof.
Burn the Ships: I like your idea and it might work, however, the current state of evolutionary science is complex and resistant to easy dumbing-down. That's one of the difficulties with really explaining some of the absurdities in the brochure well; the WT writers have exploited shifts in understanding (like the punctuated equilibrium controversy from the 1970's which has long been settled, and the more recent squabbling over cladistics) in order to harvest their quotes but understanding the errors means understanding the underlying issues, which often requires at least a fundamental knowledge of evolution and the history of the science. I'm not saying it couldn't be done, and I'd be willing to help, but it will be a challenge to say the least. I'm hoping the analysis I'm working on now will accomplish something similar but I'm finding that my analysis is longer than the article ("Has All Life Descended from a Common Ancestor?" p. 22)
-
33
Counting the errors in one section of the Origin of Life brouchure
by bohm infrom page 12:.
the theory of evolution tries to account for the origin of life on earth without the necessity of divine intervention.. .
false: simply plain false on both accounts.. however, the more that scientists discover about life, the less likely it appears that it could arise by chance.. false: author state conclusion which is not supported by the text.
-
-
Cadellin
I'm working on an analysis of the article "Has All Life Descended from a Common Ancestory?" in the Origin brochure (but have become bogged down with other stuff!) which I'll eventually post. While the WT is up to its old tricks of taking quotes out of context, it's worth noting, apart from the logical fallacies that bohm has nicely highlighted here, that the rhetorical approach is also carefully contrived to lead to a desired yet unsubstantiated conclusion: The writer will state a claim, then use a quote as evidence, then move directly into another claim, rather than explaining how the quote supports the claim made, what the connection is between the quote and the point that the writer is desiring to make.
For example, on p. 23, the brochure makes the claim "Recent research continues to contradict Darwin's theory of common descent." It then goes directly into 2 quotes, one by Bapteste: "We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality," and one by Rose about how the tree of life is being buried. But rather than explaining what the connection is between these quotes and common descent or, more importantly, how these quotes relate back to the central claim of the whole article itself, which is that there are "fixed barriers separating the different kinds" (p.22), the article goes directly into the next subheading, leaving the reader to make the connection on his or her own, in all likelihood presuming that these quoted scientists (Bapteste and Rose) are disputing common descent in toto. However, a review of the New Scientist article from which these quotes are taken quickly reveals that they are speaking of gene swapping among unicellular organisms--bacteria and viruses. "As early as 1993, some were proposing that for bacteria and archaea, the tree of life was more like a web," the original New Scientist article states. "By sheer weight of numbers almost all the living things on Earth are microbes. It would be perverse to claim that the evolution of life on Earth resembles a tree just because multicellular life evolved that way." (emphasis added).
Hmm...I think it's clear to see why the writer conveniently avoids explaining how the quote relates to the claim, don't you?
Why did my typing get so small?
-
25
Captives of a Concept
by dgp ini'm reading "captives of a concept", by don cameron.
cameron holds that the one thing that keeps jehovah's witnesses prisoners in the watchtower is the idea that they are in "god's organization", and, therefore, the right thing to do, in spite of what one sees, is to stay within it.
cameron also says that those jehovah's witnesses who become convinced that the watchtower is not god's organization eventually leave.
-
-
Cadellin
Cameron argues that the body of doctrine that the Watchtower held then was very different from what it holds as true now, and, therefore, if Jesus had chosen them on that basis, then the basis is gone, supposing they were ever chosen.
While I think this is a valid observation, I suspect the JW response would be that Russell got certain key things right (like no Trinity, no hellfire, need for preaching, etc) and b/c the WT's basis for approaching doctrine was letting the Bible speak for itself, free of "manmade traditions," they were in a position to be led into truth via "new light." Therefore, rather than the stark difference in doctrine over the last century being important, it has been their willingness to be molded by Jesus, while constantly keeping the preaching work in the forefront. This is one of the blandishments that came through in the new DVD.
Of course, this conveniently sidesteps all the ways they've been just plain WRONG.
-
34
signs of the end of times - CO talk
by DaCheech inthe co yesterday had proof, that we are definetely in the last seconds of the end times.. he said: "never in the history of mankind, has all the signs of jesus' "end times" happened simultaneously".. earthquakes have happened, pestilence same, wars same, etc etc............. but now all these are being seen together and alarmingly so.
-
-
Cadellin
In my mind, there's no doubt that our planet is in serious trouble. However, the problems facing us are altogether new and not even hinted about in Scripture: Unconstrained population growth in third world countries, overreliance on fossil fuel and climate change. Witnesses like to trot out Rev. 11:18 as putative prophecy about environmental degradation but a closer look shows that Rev. is echoing the words about the Noachian deluge and speaking of people ruining the earth with violence. While it's true that there are parts of the world where people are starving, there are actually more people on this planet who are obese. (Shoot--I want to include a link to the Scientific American podcast on this topic but for some reason it won't let me)
And disease? It boggles my mind that they are trying to pitch this as being a worse problem than at other times in human history! It's particularly intersting to check out the WHO's Millenium Goals update at its website. In fact, evidence that people are actually in far better health now than at any other time is the fact that we even have a population boom! Even in underdeveloped countries where AIDS is prevalent, people for the most part are living longer and their kids are surviving to reproduction age.
I'm not Pollyanna-ish over the state our planet is in. But the fact is, disease, hunger, and warfare are not worse now than ever before--it's the other problems we need to worry about. And, no, earthquakes are not one of them.
-
17
attendance/baptisms ratio
by Dold Agenda inin sweden we are now checking the attendance/baptisms ratio at some conventions by simply divide the number of baptisms to the attendance number.. far ago in the 70-ies it was like 5% before 1975. last year we was around 0,55%.
(quite like the italy in fact ).
this year we have counted only 2 conventions this far.
-
-
Cadellin
Interesting thread. At Tacoma WA there was a peak of 11,800 approx and 62 bap., about 0.52%. Looked like a mix of ages, though there were unquestionably some very, very young kids among them.
-
13
their invite to check the bibliography
by booby insince i spent a bit of time looking up this info i shamelessly copied from another thread for a new post here to get thoughts on how goofy their bibliography is.
how many jw's would take the time, if they even take the time to read the brochure, to check out these references in the bibliography.. how fast can a cell reproduce?
on page 11 includes reference 16 to bibliography.. that book can be found here http://www.scribd.com/doc/26545498/brain-matters-translating-research-into-classroom-practice.
-
-
Cadellin
I, for one, plan to check every reference very carefully. I think there are others here on this board who are in the process of doing that as well (?) It will be interesting to see what turns up. I know that on Circuit Overseer's video on "Using your Powers of Reason," he'd sent an email to one scientist quoted in the new brochure who denied saying what she was quoted as saying...
-
126
Australian brothers VERY negative comments regarding new "generations" ... some leaving Bethel..will this blow up in the Watchtowers face?
by Witness 007 ina brother i spoke with from bethel to me seemed discouraged and lacking zeal latley...he spoke of leaving which shocked me since he was there for decades...he left to get a full time job!!!
it was his whole reason for living since i've known him!
others have said the new doctrine of "blended generations" of anionted seeing armagedon is "confusing" or "i just don't get it"...one brother my only close friend is furious and said i qoute..."they seem to be blowing smoke up our ass!
-
-
Cadellin
They have too much invested
Bingo! That's it exactly, exactly what I'm seeing in my own relatives. It truly is a matter of "Where else can we go?" Sadly, they have given everything to this organization and would literally lose it all if they left. It's especially true for born-ins with the entire extended family all super-zealous. Damn.
-
23
hey everyone.....been a while just wanted to introduce myself again
by Jesika inwell, i have been a memeber for a while.
thought the site was gone.. nice to see its still up and running.. learned alot here.. to summerize..........born into the jdub......got df'd at 15.... (am 34 now)on purpose (was molested by my uncle, so wanted out, saw the bs of covering that kind of thing up at an early age),.
dad was an elder, grandad was a po, etc.. left home after being df'd..........ran away....never to return....had a hard time learning how the " world" really was.. anyways......just glad to see this board is still around........just wanted to extend myself to anyone who needs to talk about abuse or the difficulty of "getting out".
-
-
Cadellin
Hey, Jesika--Nice to meet you! Wow, a mechanic. I'm impressed. (I get anxious unscrewing the gas cap)
You have a great attitude!