Coming out as creationists: fear.

[Deeje]

This is too long to respond to all in one go without becoming unmanageable for people to read. I'm going to select first your comments about science in general, to see if we can reach an understanding on what science does.

You say the Geiger-Marsden experiment "proved" something by "mathematics". That is wrong. It did not. To everyone's shock and amazement, most of the alpha particles went straight through as if the gold foil was empty space, but a few bounced right back at the alpha particle source. This was evidence that atoms are mostly empty space, with a tiny core in the middle in which all the mass is concentrated - enough to make an alpha particle bounce back if hit directly. Mathematics was naturally involved in interpreting the observations quantitatively, but nothing was thereby "proved".

Consider Brownian motion. No maths here at all, just observation that smoke particles seen through a microscope jiggle about randomly. This is evidence for the "kinetic theory of matter" - the model according to which matter consists of tiny particles in random motion. But it is not proof.

So there is a reason why you keep on tediously hearing the same point that "science doesn't deal in proof". If you had understood this point you would not be saying that the Geiger-Marsden experiment "proves" something, or making inappropriate analogies with courts of law.

The theory of evolution has the same status in science as the kinetic theory of matter or the structure of the atom. All of these are "only theories" if you wish to characterise them that way.

They are not "facts", they are "models".

I am not disputing chemistry or any other branch of science that explores different facets of creation...per se.

My major gripe has always been the way evolutionary science is presented to young people, especially those still at school. There is nothing mentioned to them about the hypothetical nature of science's pet theory.

I look at the likes of Dawkins and Coyne and all I see are egos spruking nonsense with ridicule as their primary weapon against any dissent....."you will believe what I say or you'll be sorry you didn't'. I will hold you up to ridicule by making you appear to be a fool in front of everyone." I have always hated that approach.

The only "facts" in science are reproducible observations. The theories are not facts, for the very good reason that they are continually subject to revision in the light of observations that do not fit. In science, all "truth" is strictly provisional. Even Newtonian mechanics, trusted for centuries and still trusted by engineers to this day, has been shown not to work for the very small, or the very fast.

I understand all that....but that is not what I am arguing about. To say that "the only "facts" in science are reproducible observations" is to dismiss 95% of what science teaches about macro-evolution. There is no way to test macro-evolution with "reproducible observations". The whole premise of evolution is based on adaptation, which is based on reproducible observations"...but what cannot be reproduced is what goes beyond adaptive ability.....there is no way to prove that adaptation can go beyond what is observed in a lab.

Are you OK with this so far?

Are you with me so far?

And that risible "just a theory" of evolution, predicting that a link would be found between whales and land mammals:-
Pakicetus - Wikipedia

And this is a case in point.....how much actual evidence is there that the creatures that are presented as intermediary species in whale evolution, actually are?

How big was Pakicetus? He is about the size of a dog.

How reasonable is it then to assume that this small land dwelling creature eventually became a whale?

Going to my favorite site....under the heading "The Evolution of Whales" it says.....

"The first thing to notice on this evogram is that hippos are the closest living relatives of whales, but they are not the ancestors of whales. In fact, none of the individual animals on the evogram is the direct ancestor of any other, as far as we know. That's why each of them gets its own branch on the family tree."

The evolution of whales

Do you notice something about this diagram? Look at the size of pakicetus (pictured above in relation to a human) and then notice the size of the whale at the bottom. They don't appear to be very different in size, do they?

Now look at the comparative size of the these animals.....

A human is in the bottom right hand corner. Now if pakicetus was much smaller than a human, compared to the size of the whale depicted here, where would pakicetus appear in this diagram?

According to Berkeley's Evolution 101, 'none of these creatures is a direct ancestor of any other'....Is that what the diagram conveys though? When you look at that diagram, what is it natural to assume? A line of decent.

It goes on to say.....
"These first whales, such as Pakicetus, were typical land animals. They had long skulls and large carnivorous teeth. From the outside, they don't look much like whales at all. However, their skulls — particularly in the ear region, which is surrounded by a bony wall — strongly resemble those of living whales and are unlike those of any other mammal. Often, seemingly minor features provide critical evidence to link animals that are highly specialized for their lifestyles (such as whales) with their less extreme-looking relatives."

So what is it that convinces scientists that Pakicetus, although not resembling a whale by any stretch of anyone's imagination, can be placed in a whale's evolutionary line of decent?......nothing more than a 'similar' ear bone. This bone "strongly resembles those of living whales". Now I don't know about you, but that stretches my imagination way further than an Intelligent Creator fashioning individual creatures out of the same raw materials and placing them in appropriate habitats that he designed for them. I don't see any creature in this line of decent as being related in any way to one another and Berkeley actually says so.

This is what I come across all the time. I check out the links people give me and find that they do not say what most people think they do. Its like the truth is hiding in plain sight.

Do you see it?

 

[Deeje]

Another case in point....

Why do some textbooks change the scale of the fossils that they depict as following a proposed sequence?
Isn't the scale important?
Above left: scale of fossils as shown in some textbooks
Above right: real relative size."

In science text books we used to see early man portrayed as stooped over in ape-like fashion to give the impression that humans evolved from apes, but when it was discovered that early man was as upright as humans are today, they changed the picture to make the apes upright to mimic man. Do you see the deception?

 

[exchemist]

I am not disputing chemistry or any other branch of science that explores different facets of creation...per se.

My major gripe has always been the way evolutionary science is presented to young people, especially those still at school. There is nothing mentioned to them about the hypothetical nature of science's pet theory.

I look at the likes of Dawkins and Coyne and all I see are egos spruking nonsense with ridicule as their primary weapon against any dissent....."you will believe what I say or you'll be sorry you didn't'. I will hold you up to ridicule by making you appear to be a fool in front of everyone." I have always hated that approach.



I understand all that....but that is not what I am arguing about. To say that "the only "facts" in science are reproducible observations" is to dismiss 95% of what science teaches about macro-evolution. There is no way to test macro-evolution with "reproducible observations". The whole premise of evolution is based on adaptation, which is based on reproducible observations"...but what cannot be reproduced is what goes beyond adaptive ability.....there is no way to prove that adaptation can go beyond what is observed in a lab.



Are you with me so far?

[snip - digression into whale evolution set aside]

Yes, good, if you understand that, you will stop talking about "proof" in science and drop the analogies with law courts. And that means that this sentence of yours:

"The whole premise of evolution is based on adaptation, which is based on reproducible observations"...but what cannot be reproduced is what goes beyond adaptive ability.....there is no way to prove that adaptation can go beyond what is observed in a lab.",

should not have been written, should it? It is suddenly, and inappropriately, demanding proof, again. It should have been written:

" .....there is no evidence that adaptation can go beyond......"

Written like that, it is an untrue statement, of course*.

As to the "dismissing" of 95% of what is taught, yes the teaching of science is mainly the teaching of theory, the models. How could it be otherwise? What a tedious waste of time it would be if science consisted of learning lists of observations, with no linking theory to rationalise them. This is why schools teach the Aufbau principle to explain the Periodic Table, rather than a huge recitation of the chemical reactions of all the elements. Science typically teaches the theory, underpinned by key observational facts that support each theory. (Which is why, as a chemist, I am familiar with Brownian motion and the Geiger-Marsden experiment of course.) Evolution in biology is no different.

By the way, the term "evolution" is actually used in two senses: one of them observational fact and one the famous theory or model. It is observational fact that, for example, cancer cells evolve resistance to cancer drugs and that bacteria evolve resistance to antibiotics. We observe the organisms change. So if someone tells you "evolution is a fact" it is true, if meant in this sense. I presume you don't have a problem with that.

Where the theory comes in is in the explanation of why the change occurs, due, according to the model, to a stress factor in the environment, mutations and selectively favoured reproduction, by those mutations best at dealing with the stress factor. This model is supported by the observational evidence. From what you say it looks as if you don't have a problem with that either.

So it looks as if your difficulty is in accepting the idea of change from one species to another by evolution. Is that fair?


* If you maintain there is no reproducible evidence for adaptation leading to new species forming from previous ones, we can discuss that next, if you like.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Another case in point....

Why do some textbooks change the scale of the fossils that they depict as following a proposed sequence?
Isn't the scale important?
Above left: scale of fossils as shown in some textbooks
Above right: real relative size."

What is the source of this?

In science text books we used to see early man portrayed as stooped over in ape-like fashion to give the impression that humans evolved from apes, but when it was discovered that early man was as upright as humans are today, they changed the picture to make the apes upright to mimic man. Do you see the deception?

That depends entirely on where you draw the line of "early man". Obviously early homo sapien sapiens walked upright like we do today because, well, they had the exact same physiology. But the fact is that their ancestors did not.

 

[ecco]

I know what I see....you appear to 'worship' men of science....these are your 'gods'. You have faith in their writings which you treat as your 'scripture' and the hallowed halls of academia are the temples where your gods are worshipped and where your 'devotees' are educated in 'the faith'.

Do I really have to, again, quote dictionary definitions for you? It's getting to be tedious.

de·i·ty
ˈdēədē,ˈdāədē/
noun
the creator and supreme being (in a monotheistic religion such as Christianity).

a·the·ist
ˈāTHēəst/
noun
a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

wor·ship
ˈwərSHəp/
noun
1.the feeling or expression of reverence and adoration for a deity."the worship of God"

te·di·ous
ˈtēdēəs/
adjective
too long, slow, or dull: tiresome or monotonous.
​

• If you are too ignorant to know the meanings of these words, then you should spend some time learning words before using them.
• If you are intentionally twisting the meaning of words in order to support your arguments, then your arguments are baseless.

Neither case says much for your intellectual prowess or your honesty. Is that a result of your JW training?

​

I didn't have to prove anything wrong to myself. 1914 came and went. It wasn't the start of anything as predicted by your JW leaders. Facts are facts. I accept them, you choose to ignore them.

I believe I explained this already. It came and went because we realized that it was the beginning of the last days...not the end. Everything gets clearer as the day draws closer.

That's not what your religious leaders said at the time .

• They did not say: The End Of Times may be coming at some point in the future.
• They did say: The End Of Times is happening in 1914.

I'm sorry but that is not true. Your beliefs are based on faith that what science cannot prove is actually true.

Again with the word "prove"? I've already quoted the definition for the word tedious. Maybe you should try to read it.

Do you understand the power of suggestion?
You don't think anyone with a powerful agenda can accomplish this? Think again.

Do you mean a powerful agenda like that of JW? An agenda that is taught to toddlers by their JW parents at the behest of the JW Leaders?

That you cannot understand the difference between evidence and blind faith just shows how deeply indoctrinated you really are.

Now, that just made me laugh out loud!

How 'deeply indoctrinated' are you?

I wasn't taught evolution as a toddler. Were you taught about god as a toddler?
I wasn't taught evolution as a child. Were you taught about god as a child?

 

[ecco]

I copied some of the words from some of your quotes into Google. Each time it came up with a JW site, as I showed. How did you find all these quotes? Did you do a Google search on JW Failed predictions?

Reply To: 1914 – what happened? – Heaven Net

So what is Heaven Net? Is it a JW site?

 

[ecco]

Oh please ....all you did was twist my words by taking them out of context. I hope if anyone cares to check that they will use the opportunity to go to my old thread ("Just Accidental") which still adds about 100 hits a day since it was closed last year, because there are some good posts in that thread. It has topped 101,000 at last count. So.....someone is interested.

EDIT: Did you spark a landslide Mr Fly? I just checked...that thread had over 1300 hits overnight. How awesome!

What thread?

 

[Subduction Zone]

So what is Heaven Net? Is it a JW site?

It appears to be at the least a very Christian forum. The writer of that was clearly Jehovah Witness since his claims are almost identical to the official doctrine of the JW's. The JW's do have a tendency to reinterpret their prophesies after they fail.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

I think it's true that many countries are less tolerant of skepticism towards evolution than the U.S.

The US is more religious than other countries which is why there is more tolerance for people rejecting science because of their religious beliefs.

And so things like evolution, global warming, the more academic v tangible sciences are still more popular within old world academia

Evolution and global warming are as tangible as any other science.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

I am not disputing chemistry or any other branch of science that explores different facets of creation...per se.

My major gripe has always been the way evolutionary science is presented to young people, especially those still at school. There is nothing mentioned to them about the hypothetical nature of science's pet theory.

The hypothetical nature of science is introduced to students from the outset. The theory of evolution is no different than any other theory in science.

What you continually argue against is the very idea of using the scientific method, and this post demonstrates it once again.

 

[Jose Fly]

I think you need to qualify that statement...this is what YOU find "evident" from my posts after you have twisted what I said all out of shape

I'm still not sure what you think I "twisted", as the context you added didn't change anything. For example, I quoted your statement....

"No one will ever convince me that the billions of amazing lifeforms on this planet evolved from a single organism that somehow sprang to life in some primordial soup billions of years ago. That fantasy is less believable than an act of creation by an intelligent and purposeful Designer."

Seems pretty straightforward.

You added....

"Followed by...."How did the life begin? There are too many fortunate mutations in your scenario for it to be believable at all to me. The whole thing comes unstuck at the very beginning. The one question evolution cannot answer is the most important question of all.....if there is an all powerful Creator, your whole theory goes down the gurgler.
I guarantee that you will believe in him one day." (context)

Exactly how does that change the meaning of the original quote? How did I "twist" its meaning?

Yes indeed for the last 45 years. Never had a moment's doubt about any of my beliefs. Never once been shown anything that was even remotely convincing from any evolutionists.

Again you describe the situation in terms of being a Jehovah's Witness vs. evolution, exactly as I've been describing.

Wrong. JW's do not accept evolution in any way. It isn't a matter of "not permitted" but more a matter of finding the whole theory to be based on nothing that can be substantiated except by assumption.

So I'll ask again.....let's say Jehovah's Witness announced to his fellow members that he had done some research, found evolutionary biology to be compelling, and now considered himself to be an "evolutionist". Would the Jehovah's Witness leadership take any action? Would they do anything at all?

Wrong again. If one who was baptized as a JW, decided that evolution was too attractive to disbelieve, then what makes you think they would want to remain as a JW in congregation meetings every week, talking about the Creator? We have enough information in our literature for people to make a decision about the Creator's existence, before they take the step of baptism.

Now this is fascinating. As I documented above, I'd already asked you about this. Specifically, I asked you....

"What would happen for you personally if you were to decide to reject the JW teachings on evolution and creationism? Would you still be able to be an active, participating Jehovah's Witness? Could you attend JW functions? Would you have to keep your new views on evolution and creationism to yourself?"

You answered: "Those who leave our ranks have already been discussed. It is clear that once you learn "the truth"....you can't "unlearn" it. And since we can see that no one else teaches it, who would we turn to?...and why would we receive 'defectors' back into our ranks only to have them spread their poison. Let them commiserate with each other....that is all they can do apparently. They have nowhere to go. Like a ripe piece of fruit, they can't go back to being 'green'....they just go rotten.

If I became a defector, and a slanderer I would expect and deserve the same treatment."

But now when I say that if a Jehovah's Witness were to become an "evolutionist" they would be treated poorly, you say that's wrong.

You seem to be contradicting yourself Deeje. Perhaps you can clarify?

There would be no disfellowshipping if that person just quietly walked out the door never to return. However, if that person then took it upon themselves to try and subvert the faith of others, then we would take a dim view of that. Disfellowshipping would follow and we would have nothing more to do with that person. God hates rebels...and we don't want them either.We make no apology for that. Everyone knows exactly where they stand.

Exactly. If a Jehovah's Witness were to become an "evolutionist", they would face a choice....either leave the faith or be disfellowshipped. But just above when I said that a Jehovah's Witness "evolutionist" would be treated poorly, you said that was wrong.

if I was disfellowshipped, it would more likely be for breaking God's moral laws, which is the primary reason for most disfellowshipping in our ranks. They are not common, thank goodness. But in all my years as a JW, I never once met anyone who swapped Jehovah for evolution. Its such a bad trade.

Again you describe the situation in terms of being a Jehovah's Witness vs. evolution, exactly as I've been describing.

God's laws are not negotiable and if we break them, just as we would if we broke the laws of the land...there will be a penalty. If we were more concerned with losing our family and friends, don't you think it would be a good idea not to break the law in the first place? We think so because that is what the Bible teaches. Weigh up your options carefully and there can be no mistakes resulting in heartbreak.

Exactly as I described.

We believe by choice, because we have spent a good deal of time on our research. No one is forced to believe anything. What JW's taught just made perfect sense to me....they still do.

You cannot join Jehovah's Witnesses....you have to choose to become one, and only after you have qualified to call yourself one. Wishy-washy indecisive people are nauseating, so we really have no place for such people. (Revelation 3:15-16) When we choose Jehovah over the musings of men that could all change tomorrow, we are in a committed relationship with the Creator of the Universe. Its a nice place to live. I have never wanted to move onto that shaky ground that the majority have chosen.
Tell me what is remotely attractive about it?

Again, exactly as I described.

I will not compromise on any view that I hold with conviction.

Again, exactly as I described.

Is there anything I could present to you about creation that would touch any part of your apparently stony heart Mr Fly? I think not.

Of course. Look at all the threads started here that practically beg creationists to make a positive case for their position. Yet every single one turns into the same thing.....creationists trying to bash evolution.

If you have a positive, scientific case to make for creationism, then by all means let's see it.

There is no convincing evidence....how can you not understand this?

Oh I understand quite well. From your perspective there isn't any "convincing evidence" because the consequences you'd have to face if you admitted there was any are simply too devastating to bear. As you noted above and last year, you will not compromise on this one single bit, so the fact that you see the situation as "there is no convincing evidence" is entirely expected.

Let's face it Deeje, you are as biased as a person can possibly be on this subject. So your declarations about the data are a reflection of your extreme bias much, much more than they are a reflection on the state of the science. Given your extreme bias, you are the last person anyone should ever rely on for information regarding science.

Oh please ....all you did was twist my words by taking them out of context.

No, I didn't. The funny thing is, in your latest post (the one I'm replying to now) all you've done is confirm what I've been saying.

Hog wash

Again you're contradicting yourself. I already asked you....

"What would happen for you personally if you were to decide to reject the JW teachings on evolution and creationism?"

You answered: "I have a reasonable explanation for everything and answers to every question I have ever asked from the Bible.....what could you possibly give me that is better than what I already have? No purpose, no meaning, no future....no thanks!"

What exactly did you mean by "no purpose, no meaning, no future"?

Further, throughout your latest post you've been describing the situation as a choice between being a Jehovah's Witness and an "evolutionist", and if you were to go with evolution you would either have to leave the faith or be disfellowshipped. Surely you aren't saying that leaving the faith or being disfellowshipped is no big deal, right? Your faith means something to you, correct?

I have researched many things on science websites over the years, I can read you know....and I am not devoid of intelligence, if that is what you are suggesting....? I don't have zero education in the right knowledge.

I said nothing about your intelligence. I simply noted the facts....you have a high school level education in science (and that was some time ago) and zero training or experience in science.

If we thought for one moment that Jehovah wasn't real and that he wasn't the supreme first cause of everything, then we might be open to the suggestions made by science because we would have little in the way of other choices, would we? I like my choice and I will keep it because you have nothing better to put in its place, nor will you ever have. "Eat, drink and be merry" Mr Fly.

Again you describe the situation in terms of being a Jehovah's Witness vs. evolution, exactly as I've been describing.

Do I have degrees in science...am I trained like a seal to believe it? Nope. But I have read extensively and the things I have read all say the same things...."might have"..."could have" "must have"....there is nothing but suggestion backing the entire proposition. I don't consider that real science.

Of course you don't. Given that you have effectively no education in science, no training in science, no experience in science, and are as biased on this subject as a person could possibly be, it's hardly surprising to see you use word usage as an excuse to wave away inconvenient data. The fact that you don't even understand how unscientific that approach is further confirms the overall point.

Given everything you've said, you are the last person anyone should ever rely on for information regarding science.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Wow....you seriously did that....what do you think that says about your level of desperation Mr Fly?

Followed by...."How did the life begin? There are too many fortunate mutations in your scenario for it to be believable at all to me. The whole thing comes unstuck at the very beginning. The one question evolution cannot answer is the most important question of all.....if there is an all powerful Creator, your whole theory goes down the gurgler.
I guarantee that you will believe in him one day." (context)



Interesting choice of selective quoting....this was before your quote...
"Our conclusions are not only based on our own blind faith in Earth's Creator, but looking at the so called "evidence" that science itself presents for its conclusions. Upon scrutiny, it is clearly seen as a house of cards, built on a very flimsy foundation. It looks and sounds impressive but all that "overwhelming" evidence is found to be based entirely on supposition about what "might have" happened though it is presented as if it "must have".

And after...
"...and it gives us no future to look forward to, except what has already taken place under human rulership. All we can expect is more unanswered questions and a future in the hands of those who have already proven that they are dismal failures at ruling other humans who put their faith in them. Are you confident, moving into the future under their leadership?"



Whole quote...
"I have already rejected evolution based on years of my own research into the subject. You reckon I would dismiss all that and go back to something I have already proven to be nonsense? I have a reasonable explanation for everything and answers to every question I have ever asked from the Bible.....what could you possibly give me that is better than what I already have? No purpose, no meaning, no future....no thanks!



LOL....Why would I even WANT to become an evolutionist when I have already proven to myself that it is absolute rubbish, based on nothing more that unsubstantiated assumptions. You are implying (something you do often) that if I just understood evolution that I would accept it.....I understand its precepts perfectly, but I REJECT it. Amazing isn't it? I can choose to be whatever I wish, just as you can.....you seem desperate to prove your point even to this bit of cherry picking.

Seriously I think this post of yours smacks of desperation.
I find it rather funny that you would take trolling to this level....not surprising though when you can present no real evidence for your theory so you have to resort to these tactics.....this is a pathetic excuse for presenting support for your case.

Is shooting the messenger all you know how to do?

Looks like he backed up his claims to me. Something you might want to look into some time.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Semantics. Theories when proven have to become facts....don't they? If they are proven, why still call them theories? Oh yeah.....a "scientific theory" is just a fact waiting to be verified. Right?

No.
Scientific theories are the explanation/framework for the available observations and facts. Every scientific theory is based on facts.

Evolution is a fact. The theory of evolution is the explanation of that fact.

You really need to grasp this fundamental concept.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Is this 50 questions? Do I get a prize?

Or is this designed to lead the Witness your Honor? (pun intended)

Are you sure you've never worked in advertising?

I think you need to qualify that statement...this is what YOU find "evident" from my posts after you have twisted what I said all out of shape....


Yes indeed for the last 45 years. Never had a moment's doubt about any of my beliefs. Never once been shown anything that was even remotely convincing from any evolutionists.



Wrong. JW's do not accept evolution in any way. It isn't a matter of "not permitted" but more a matter of finding the whole theory to be based on nothing that can be substantiated except by assumption. You are good at assuming, so perhaps that is why you believe in evolution.



Wrong again. If one who was baptized as a JW, decided that evolution was too attractive to disbelieve, then what makes you think they would want to remain as a JW in congregation meetings every week, talking about the Creator? We have enough information in our literature for people to make a decision about the Creator's existence, before they take the step of baptism.

There would be no disfellowshipping if that person just quietly walked out the door never to return. However, if that person then took it upon themselves to try and subvert the faith of others, then we would take a dim view of that. Disfellowshipping would follow and we would have nothing more to do with that person. God hates rebels...and we don't want them either.We make no apology for that. Everyone knows exactly where they stand.



Oh good grief! Emotional appeals now.

Boo hoo....if I was disfellowshipped, it would more likely be for breaking God's moral laws, which is the primary reason for most disfellowshipping in our ranks. They are not common, thank goodness. But in all my years as a JW, I never once met anyone who swapped Jehovah for evolution. Its such a bad trade.

God's laws are not negotiable and if we break them, just as we would if we broke the laws of the land...there will be a penalty. If we were more concerned with losing our family and friends, don't you think it would be a good idea not to break the law in the first place? We think so because that is what the Bible teaches. Weigh up your options carefully and there can be no mistakes resulting in heartbreak.



We believe by choice, because we have spent a good deal of time on our research. No one is forced to believe anything. What JW's taught just made perfect sense to me....they still do.

You cannot join Jehovah's Witnesses....you have to choose to become one, and only after you have qualified to call yourself one. Wishy-washy indecisive people are nauseating, so we really have no place for such people. (Revelation 3:15-16) When we choose Jehovah over the musings of men that could all change tomorrow, we are in a committed relationship with the Creator of the Universe. Its a nice place to live. I have never wanted to move onto that shaky ground that the majority have chosen.
Tell me what is remotely attractive about it?

I will not compromise on any view that I hold with conviction. Will you? Is there anything I could present to you about creation that would touch any part of your apparently stony heart Mr Fly? I think not.
Your responses on these threads demonstrate how desperate you are to maintain your own convictions. Heaven forbid that anyone might believe the Bible and not science!

There is no convincing evidence....how can you not understand this? Nothing that you or anyone else have presented to date is even remotely convincing to me. I have been given link upon link and I can dismantle all of them by simply highlighting the suggestive nature of the claim. NO facts mean that you have nothing with which to convince me. Can I make that any clearer? You are welcome to the guesswork.
I have so much more than that.



Oh please ....all you did was twist my words by taking them out of context. I hope if anyone cares to check that they will use the opportunity to go to my old thread ("Just Accidental") which still adds about 100 hits a day since it was closed last year, because there are some good posts in that thread. It has topped 101,000 at last count. So.....someone is interested.

EDIT: Did you spark a landslide Mr Fly? I just checked...that thread had over 1300 hits overnight. How awesome!



Hog wash......the reason why I cannot accept what you accept is because I think its illogical nonsense based on nothing substantive. You have this monumental structure that all the devotees so admire, but it is built on toothpicks. A crash is inevitable.....sorry.



I have researched many things on science websites over the years, I can read you know....and I am not devoid of intelligence, if that is what you are suggesting....? I don't have zero education in the right knowledge. You do understand what "training" is don't you......I can do that with my dog.

If we thought for one moment that Jehovah wasn't real and that he wasn't the supreme first cause of everything, then we might be open to the suggestions made by science because we would have little in the way of other choices, would we? I like my choice and I will keep it because you have nothing better to put in its place, nor will you ever have. "Eat, drink and be merry" Mr Fly.



No you haven't...you have selected parts out of context to suggest things I never said....you like suggestions better than actual truth, apparently.



Do I have degrees in science...am I trained like a seal to believe it? Nope. But I have read extensively and the things I have read all say the same things...."might have"..."could have" "must have"....there is nothing but suggestion backing the entire proposition. I don't consider that real science.



And your training leads you where?

Can you back up a single thing with proof?
NO! Because science doesn't deal in proof....if there's no proof, there are no facts....no foundation
for your beliefs that are any more substantial than mine.

This is what 'training' results in.

I've been in this thread almost since it's beginning. I don't think Jose Fly has taken any of your words out of context. In fact, I've walked away with the same impression about your beliefs that he has taken the time to point out here for you. And quite honestly, your post here has solidified that even more.

 

[Deeje]

Yes, good, if you understand that, you will stop talking about "proof" in science and drop the analogies with law courts. And that means that this sentence of yours:

"The whole premise of evolution is based on adaptation, which is based on reproducible observations"...but what cannot be reproduced is what goes beyond adaptive ability.....there is no way to prove that adaptation can go beyond what is observed in a lab.",

should not have been written, should it? It is suddenly, and inappropriately, demanding proof, again. It should have been written:

" .....there is no evidence that adaptation can go beyond......"

Written like that, it is an untrue statement, of course*.

I had to laugh at this....here we have an unprovable "theory" that has had such far reaching implications for humanity, and their attitude towards everything....and it all comes down to "semantics". Don't mention "proof"...that is a uncomfortable term.
Science can't "prove" a thing they say, but if they change the terminology to "evidence" (which can be manipulated by interpretation) then you can get away with telling lies. I think I see the picture.

As to the "dismissing" of 95% of what is taught, yes the teaching of science is mainly the teaching of theory, the models. How could it be otherwise? What a tedious waste of time it would be if science consisted of learning lists of observations, with no linking theory to rationalise them. This is why schools teach the Aufbau principle to explain the Periodic Table, rather than a huge recitation of the chemical reactions of all the elements. Science typically teaches the theory, underpinned by key observational facts that support each theory. (Which is why, as a chemist, I am familiar with Brownian motion and the Geiger-Marsden experiment of course.) Evolution in biology is no different.

OK, lets talk about those "key observational facts".....What can be demonstrated in other branches of science has influenced scientists' attitude to the evolutionary theory. You begin with a premise which turns into a hypothesis and then into a theory. Once that theory has been shown to be true it becomes a scientific fact. I have no problem with that....what I do have is an objection to sciene's attitude to macro-evolution on the scale that they suggest with no real substantiated evidence to support it. To me the "evidence" points to the fact that scientists will stop at nothing to promote their theory. Who needs proof...right?

By the way, the term "evolution" is actually used in two senses: one of them observational fact and one the famous theory or model. It is observational fact that, for example, cancer cells evolve resistance to cancer drugs and that bacteria evolve resistance to antibiotics. We observe the organisms change. So if someone tells you "evolution is a fact" it is true, if meant in this sense. I presume you don't have a problem with that.

As has been my argument since day one, adaptation is not a problem. The problem is to call it "evolution". It is a process by which organisms adapt to a change in environment or food source. It is inherent in all living things...viruses, bacteria, insects, land animals and sea creatures. But what is it exactly and how far has science observed its boundaries? Any research I have done on "speciation" reveals something that science doesn't want to admit....it has only ever produced variety within a single taxonomic "family". Not once did the bacteria or the virus or the insect, or the fish, "evolve" to become a different "kind" of creature. What science wants to convey is.... "if a little did "this", then a lot could do "that". Is that science or guesswork?

Where is the evidence that what science is "suggesting", is even possible, let alone probable? They take a tooth here and a jawbone there and make grandiose claims by simply interpreting evidence to make it fit their theory. Then they suggest that its a fact.
Is that real science? That is my objection. Children are not taught scientific facts...they are taught speculation dressed up to look like facts. That is dishonest. It creates a mindset that prevents those children from thinking outside the "box" that science created for them. The big holes in the box are never mentioned and therefore the right questions are never asked. That is brainwashing.

Where the theory comes in is in the explanation of why the change occurs, due, according to the model, to a stress factor in the environment, mutations and selectively favoured reproduction, by those mutations best at dealing with the stress factor. This model is supported by the observational evidence. From what you say it looks as if you don't have a problem with that either.

Adaptation has limits. The "model" is a figment of science's imagination. Where is the evidence that single celled organisms transformed themselves into creatures the size of a multi-story building.....I have never seen it except in artfully contrived diagrams. Fossils tell us so very little unless scientists provide them with a voice....it seems they are good ventriloquists. I don't believe them.

So it looks as if your difficulty is in accepting the idea of change from one species to another by evolution. Is that fair?

Almost there......but not quite.
The idea of one creature changing from one "species" to another is not the problem at all....adaptation provides endless variety within any given "family" of creatures. "Species" (a word often misunderstood by those outside the science world) is a term for different members of the same taxonomic "family" of organisms. The problem comes when science starts to suggest "branching" and "morphing" which I do not believe has any basis in fact. Their "tree of life" is being called into question even by scientists themselves. If all science has is artwork and suggestions about what "might have" or "could have" or "must have" taken place all those millions of years ago, then why should anyone believe what science can only speculate about?

I don't buy any of it....its science fiction sold as science fact.

 

[Deeje]

Just as an adjunct to this discussion......

Given the state of the world at present, can't we see science's contribution to what is becoming our nightmare?
Technology has given us a lot of 'gadgets' and toys and modes of entertainment...but none so popular as the Internet. But according to research, the very thing we are all hooked on is slowly killing us. The radiation emitted by our devices is cooking our brains. Microwaves are all around us. We all have memory issues and we don't know why......that's why.

You might be interested in this man's warning....it is very sobering.

* If you maintain there is no reproducible evidence for adaptation leading to new species forming from previous ones, we can discuss that next, if you like.

Please don't go down the "speciation" route...it leads nowhere. See above.
Give me evidence of 'amoebas to dinosaurs' and you might have something to tell us.

 

[Deeje]

I'm still not sure what you think I "twisted", as the context you added didn't change anything. For example, I quoted your statement....

"No one will ever convince me that the billions of amazing lifeforms on this planet evolved from a single organism that somehow sprang to life in some primordial soup billions of years ago. That fantasy is less believable than an act of creation by an intelligent and purposeful Designer."

Seems pretty straightforward.

You added....

"Followed by...."How did the life begin? There are too many fortunate mutations in your scenario for it to be believable at all to me. The whole thing comes unstuck at the very beginning. The one question evolution cannot answer is the most important question of all.....if there is an all powerful Creator, your whole theory goes down the gurgler.
I guarantee that you will believe in him one day." (context)

Exactly how does that change the meaning of the original quote? How did I "twist" its meaning?


Again you describe the situation in terms of being a Jehovah's Witness vs. evolution, exactly as I've been describing.


So I'll ask again.....let's say Jehovah's Witness announced to his fellow members that he had done some research, found evolutionary biology to be compelling, and now considered himself to be an "evolutionist". Would the Jehovah's Witness leadership take any action? Would they do anything at all?


Now this is fascinating. As I documented above, I'd already asked you about this. Specifically, I asked you....

"What would happen for you personally if you were to decide to reject the JW teachings on evolution and creationism? Would you still be able to be an active, participating Jehovah's Witness? Could you attend JW functions? Would you have to keep your new views on evolution and creationism to yourself?"

You answered: "Those who leave our ranks have already been discussed. It is clear that once you learn "the truth"....you can't "unlearn" it. And since we can see that no one else teaches it, who would we turn to?...and why would we receive 'defectors' back into our ranks only to have them spread their poison. Let them commiserate with each other....that is all they can do apparently. They have nowhere to go. Like a ripe piece of fruit, they can't go back to being 'green'....they just go rotten.

If I became a defector, and a slanderer I would expect and deserve the same treatment."

But now when I say that if a Jehovah's Witness were to become an "evolutionist" they would be treated poorly, you say that's wrong.

You seem to be contradicting yourself Deeje. Perhaps you can clarify?


Exactly. If a Jehovah's Witness were to become an "evolutionist", they would face a choice....either leave the faith or be disfellowshipped. But just above when I said that a Jehovah's Witness "evolutionist" would be treated poorly, you said that was wrong.


Again you describe the situation in terms of being a Jehovah's Witness vs. evolution, exactly as I've been describing.


Exactly as I described.


Again, exactly as I described.


Again, exactly as I described.


Of course. Look at all the threads started here that practically beg creationists to make a positive case for their position. Yet every single one turns into the same thing.....creationists trying to bash evolution.

If you have a positive, scientific case to make for creationism, then by all means let's see it.


Oh I understand quite well. From your perspective there isn't any "convincing evidence" because the consequences you'd have to face if you admitted there was any are simply too devastating to bear. As you noted above and last year, you will not compromise on this one single bit, so the fact that you see the situation as "there is no convincing evidence" is entirely expected.

Let's face it Deeje, you are as biased as a person can possibly be on this subject. So your declarations about the data are a reflection of your extreme bias much, much more than they are a reflection on the state of the science. Given your extreme bias, you are the last person anyone should ever rely on for information regarding science.


No, I didn't. The funny thing is, in your latest post (the one I'm replying to now) all you've done is confirm what I've been saying.


Again you're contradicting yourself. I already asked you....

"What would happen for you personally if you were to decide to reject the JW teachings on evolution and creationism?"

You answered: "I have a reasonable explanation for everything and answers to every question I have ever asked from the Bible.....what could you possibly give me that is better than what I already have? No purpose, no meaning, no future....no thanks!"

What exactly did you mean by "no purpose, no meaning, no future"?

Further, throughout your latest post you've been describing the situation as a choice between being a Jehovah's Witness and an "evolutionist", and if you were to go with evolution you would either have to leave the faith or be disfellowshipped. Surely you aren't saying that leaving the faith or being disfellowshipped is no big deal, right? Your faith means something to you, correct?


I said nothing about your intelligence. I simply noted the facts....you have a high school level education in science (and that was some time ago) and zero training or experience in science.


Again you describe the situation in terms of being a Jehovah's Witness vs. evolution, exactly as I've been describing.


Of course you don't. Given that you have effectively no education in science, no training in science, no experience in science, and are as biased on this subject as a person could possibly be, it's hardly surprising to see you use word usage as an excuse to wave away inconvenient data. The fact that you don't even understand how unscientific that approach is further confirms the overall point.

Given everything you've said, you are the last person anyone should ever rely on for information regarding science.

and still it goes on and on and on....

I think we get the picture....you got nothing but hot air.

What has this thread got to do with JW's?

The title of this thread is about people being afraid to 'come out as creationists'...I think you demonstrate with every post why that might be so. What person with any sensibilities wants to deal with people like you?

How about some real "evidence" (heaven forbid we should ask for proof) for your pet theory?

Please tell us with substantiated scientific findings, how single celled organisms became dinosaurs.....we are all waiting for your expert presentation.....

Do you have anything of value to add to the thread?...or is this all you can do?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Just as an adjunct to this discussion......

Given the state of the world at present, can't we see science's contribution to what is becoming our nightmare?
Technology has given us a lot of 'gadgets' and toys and modes of entertainment...but none so popular as the Internet. But according to research, the very thing we are all hooked on is slowly killing us. The radiation emitted by our devices is cooking our brains. Microwaves are all around us. We all have memory issues and we don't know why......that's why.

You might be interested in this man's warning....it is very sobering.

Please don't go down the "speciation" route...it leads nowhere. See above.
Give me evidence of 'amoebas to dinosaurs' and you might have something to tell us.

Just because a person claims to be an expert does not mean that he is one. The sort of damage that he appears to be talking about can only be caused by ionizing radiation. That leaves out your wifi and any other low frequency generator of electro magnetic energy.

 

[Deeje]

I've been in this thread almost since it's beginning. I don't think Jose Fly has taken any of your words out of context. In fact, I've walked away with the same impression about your beliefs that he has taken the time to point out here for you. And quite honestly, your post here has solidified that even more.

Why do I not find that surprising?

Birds of a feather and all that......

 

[Deeje]

What is the source of this?

Thank you for reminding me.....

Has All Life Descended From a Common Ancestor? — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

There is more good info there....

This is a good example of "suggestion" at work......

Without the dotted line "suggested" by science, there is no real relationship of any of these creatures to one another.

An article published in National Geographic in 2004 likened the fossil record to “a film of evolution from which 999 of every 1,000 frames have been lost on the cutting-room floor.”36 Consider the implications of that illustration.

If “95 frames” of the fossil record show that animals do not evolve from one type into another, why do paleontologists arrange the remaining “5 frames” to imply that they do?

Imagine that you found 100 frames of a feature film that originally had 100,000 frames. How would you determine the plot of the movie? You might have a preconceived idea, but what if only 5 of the 100 frames you found could be organized to support your preferred plot, while the other 95 frames tell a very different story? Would it be reasonable to assert that your preconceived idea of the movie was right because of the five frames? Could it be that you placed the five frames in the order you did because it suited your theory? Would it not be more reasonable to allow the other 95 frames to influence your opinion?

Food for thinkers.....