Harsh Truth: If Intelligent Design is Untestable . . .

[shawn001]

Also how come JW's have been wrong so many times about the end times and dates?

as well as

"Man's inhumanity to man"


Watchtower settles child sex abuse lawsuits 2007


"
Six years ago media was first alerted that Jehovah’s Witnesses have a policy that endangers children. Since that first report in which William H. Bowen reported a fellow elder in Kentucky that was a confessed child molester and who remains a Jehovah’s Witness in good standing to this day, over 6,000 abuse survivors have come forward to say they too were molested and silenced by Jehovah’s Witness policy on child abuse.

Dateline, CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, FOX, BBC, CBC, New York Times and over 30 countries have aired documentaries that identified child rapists who enjoy sanctuary in Jehovah’s Witness congregations. In 2007, fugitive Rick McLean (a San Diego native and long time resident) was featured on America’s Most Wanted and suspected of molesting over 30 children while protected as a Jehovah’s Witness.

In the last five years, more than 40 lawsuits against Watchtower (the Jehovah’s Witnesses headquarters/administrative arm in NYC) have been filed by members to seek justice for the way they were treated by church policy when they were molested as children. Attorney Jeff Anderson successful in over 600 lawsuits over abuse states, “When victims are forced to sign gag orders it is a continuation of the coerced code of silence from church hierarchy. Jehovah’s Witnesses silenced molested kids before the elders and now they are doing it in the courts.

After a five year court battle Watchtower is finally admitting they have hurt children. Material will be provided to assist Nashville Jehovah’s Witness sexual abuse survivors at the press conference."

Watchtower settles child sex abuse lawsuits | Robin Jackson Blog

 

[Sapiens]

I accept that adaptation is a natural process programmed into all living creatures by the Creator. That part is true.
What I do not accept is that macro-evolution is necessarily true because of that. It is a giant leap from one to the other even though science treats it as baby steps.
[/quote[You can choose to espouse any sort of foolishness you choose, but to deny that a few more than two thousand paces make up a mile seems rather an indefensible position coming as is does from someone who refuses to even state the length of a mile (define "kind").
All life did not come into existence from a single accidental occurrence of life somewhere in the distant past that eventually became all that we see on this earth. That to me is a bigger fantasy that what atheists believe the Bible to be.

While that is a rather simplistic description, you lack the knowledge, background and careful thought on the subject to be in a position to compare the length of fantasies in a meaningful manner.

 

[Curious George]

My faith is a construction that took many years to build. I am not convinced easily. I require proof.

I have no idea how to answer a question that would never be entertained in my mind. I respect everyone's right to believe whatever they like...but no one will convince me that an intelligent designer of all life does not exist. I see intelligence designed into nature that is not explainable except by the existence of a purposeful designer....random chance as an explanation, is an impossibility of the highest order. Just too ridiculous.
That to me is like saying someone left a brick on a vacant block of land and when they went back in a few million years, there was a skyscraper!

So what I am understanding is evolution would debunk an intelligent designer in your opinion? Because, I am not asking you about an intelligent designer. I am asking if macroevolution was proven to occur or that is had occurred what, if anything, would change?

You have all of these colorful analogies, but all I am asking is how the revelation of macroevolution as a fact would change your life and beliefs. I am having a hard time understanding why such a proposition is not answerable, even if it is patently ridiculous. I am not trying to convince you of anything.

 

[JayJayDee]

You don't even have the right framework for the debate, science is not about God.

I kinda think I know that.....but it still doesn't mean that God didn't create the science that man is only just beginning to see the tip of the iceberg.....you know.

Was Einstein stupid?

LOL stupid is as stupid does. Did Einstein do anything stupid?

I know a few very intelligent people who haven't got a lick of common sense. What does it mean to be intelligent?

If I had to choose between a university science graduate and a native bushman to guide me through the Australian desert....guess which one I'd choose.

The Big Bang so hot, that all the matter would have been in the form of particles, called protons and neutrons.

And the Creator of those protons and neutrons was the one who mastered how to bring them together to form all that we see. Is it an obscenity for you to entertain such a prospect? Since evolution does not completely discount the existence of a Creator, it seems as if it isn't something you can acknowledge. I guess we each have our favorite stance on this issue.

Take it from there and explain the evolution of the universe and formation of the sun and the planets to today. Lets here your explanation, without using your bible.

You explain it without yours. If science had not told you how they believe it happened...how would you know?

Since the Bible simply makes a blanket statement about the creation of the universe, how do you know that the Big Bang wasn't from God? Is there something in your psyche that rejects that concept? If so why?

King David made an interesting statement about his creation....."For you produced my kidneys;
You kept me screened off in my mother’s womb.
I praise you because in an awe-inspiring way I am wonderfully made.
Your works are wonderful,
I know this very well.
My bones were not hidden from you
When I was made in secret,
When I was woven in the depths of the earth.
Your eyes even saw me as an embryo;
All its parts were written in your book." (Psalm 139:13-15)

Was David actually talking about DNA sequencing? Perhaps he was.

 

[JayJayDee]

So what I am understanding is evolution would debunk an intelligent designer in your opinion?

Nothing would debunk my belief in an intelligent designer of all life on earth.

Because, I am not asking you about an intelligent designer. I am asking if macroevolution was proven to occur or that is had occurred what, if anything, would change?

Can you prove macro-evolution? If not then its a stupid question.

You have all of these colorful analogies, but all I am asking is how the revelation of macroevolution as a fact would change your life and beliefs. I am having a hard time understanding why such a proposition is not answerable, even if it is patently ridiculous. I am not trying to convince you of anything.

What do you want me to say? Obviously it isn't a prospect I can even entertain. It is so ridiculous that it will not stand up no matter what "science" presents as "evidence". When said evidence is open to interpretation, you only have the word of the interpreter....and if that interpreter has the right amount of weight with the scientific community, they will believe anything he says.

I have examined the so called "evidence" and it isn't enough to convict....sorry. Circumstantial at best. Any clever lawyer can make their case sound convincing.....they can make lies sound like truth and vice versa.

 

[Bunyip]

Nothing would debunk my belief in an intelligent designer of all life on earth.


Can you prove macro-evolution? If not then its a stupid question.

Yes. As you have been told so many times, macro evolution was proven by direct observation of speciation more than a century ago. A fact you choose to deny.

What do you want me to say? Obviously it isn't a prospect I can even entertain. It is so ridiculous that it will not stand up no matter what "science" presents as "evidence". When said evidence is open to interpretation, you only have the word of the interpreter....and if that interpreter has the right amount of weight with the scientific community, they will believe anything he says.

I have examined the so called "evidence" and it isn't enough to convict....sorry. Circumstantial at best. Any clever lawyer can make their case sound convincing.....they can make lies sound like truth and vice versa.

If you believe that the evidence is only circumstantial, then you can not have actually examined it.

 

[Curious George]

Nothing would debunk my belief in an intelligent designer of all life on earth.


Can you prove macro-evolution? If not then its a stupid question.



What do you want me to say? Obviously it isn't a prospect I can even entertain. It is so ridiculous that it will not stand up no matter what "science" presents as "evidence". When said evidence is open to interpretation, you only have the word of the interpreter....and if that interpreter has the right amount of weight with the scientific community, they will believe anything he says.

I have examined the so called "evidence" and it isn't enough to convict....sorry. Circumstantial at best. Any clever lawyer can make their case sound convincing.....they can make lies sound like truth and vice versa.

Your arguing against evolution but that was not what was asked or presented. But I guess we can go that route if you want. I think it important to be able to entertain a perspective in order to look at the evidence objectively. While you have looked at the evidence you have certainly not looked objectively (or even skeptically) because you can't even fathom, by your own admission, macroevolution occurring. And we are not talking about you just thinking the evidence is against it, or not convincing. We are talking evolution exceeds your capacity for imagination. When I ask you to imagine how your life would change I might have just as well said how would your life change if plgdyhddtjjxe. The conceptualization of evolution simply eludes you. So my follow up question is given this deficiency, why do you bother discussing it?

 

[JayJayDee]

Your arguing against evolution but that was not what was asked or presented. But I guess we can go that route if you want. I think it important to be able to entertain a perspective in order to look at the evidence objectively. While you have looked at the evidence you have certainly not looked objectively (or even skeptically) because you can't even fathom, by your own admission, macroevolution occurring. And we are not talking about you just thinking the evidence is against it, or not convincing. We are talking evolution exceeds your capacity for imagination. When I ask you to imagine how your life would change I might have just as well said how would your life change if plgdyhddtjjxe. The conceptualization of evolution simply eludes you. So my follow up question is given this deficiency, why do you bother discussing it?

If evolution exceeds my capacity for imagination, then obviously it only requires imagination to believe it.

Given your inability to entertain my point of view, I should ask you the same question....why are you bothering to ask stupid loaded questions that I have no desire to answer? Am I under some obligation to entertain you in some manner?

Sorry to disappoint. I have examined evolution and I do not see one single convincing piece of evidence that anyone has presented that exhibits the slightest bit of proof for anything but adaptation. How many times would you like me to say it.

Produce the evidence. Not the conjecture, assumption or educated guesswork.....not graphics or illustrations based on someone's imagination.....show us the real proof that one "kind" can transform into another "kind" altogether.

 

[Bunyip]

If evolution exceeds my capacity for imagination, then obviously it only requires imagination to believe it.

Given your inability to entertain my point of view, I should ask you the same question....why are you bothering to ask stupid loaded questions that I have no desire to answer? Am I under some obligation to entertain you in some manner?

Sorry to disappoint. I have examined evolution and I do not see one single convincing piece of evidence that anyone has presented that exhibits the slightest bit of proof for anything but adaptation. How many times would you like me to say it.

Produce the evidence. Not the conjecture, assumption or educated guesswork.....not graphics or illustrations based on someone's imagination.....show us the real proof that one "kind" can transform into another "kind" altogether.

Why is it contingent on YOU seeing and understanding the evidence? So what if you - a person with a clear agenda, a distaste for honesty and no scientific knowledge whatsoever denies macro evolution?
Why would your denial be of concern to the rest of us? I think that I would prefer to trust in the qualified professionals rather than a zealot with an agenda.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Why would there be a ''long creation time'', anyways? lol

Why indeed. Considering freedom is real and relevant, there seems to be no impediment for the universe starting out fully formed.

But once the first decision is made, then next decisions combine with previous decisions, and so then one would expect more incremental forming.

 

[gnostic]

No, I am asking how your faith would be restructured. What implications would it hold for you.

It is not in the realm of possibility for leprechauns to exist imho, but if you were to ask me how my beliefs would change if leprechauns did exist, I could answer.

I thought jayjaydee may have misunderstood your (original) question, but now I am convinced he is simply dodging them.

He can't give you any straight answer, which is typical from creationists. I don't think he will ever give you one.

Don't ever expect honest from a creationist, especially if he or she is a JW. Those of the Watchtower are no better than those at the Discovery Institute.

 

[Curious George]

If evolution exceeds my capacity for imagination, then obviously it only requires imagination to believe it.

Given your inability to entertain my point of view, I should ask you the same question....why are you bothering to ask stupid loaded questions that I have no desire to answer? Am I under some obligation to entertain you in some manner?

Sorry to disappoint. I have examined evolution and I do not see one single convincing piece of evidence that anyone has presented that exhibits the slightest bit of proof for anything but adaptation. How many times would you like me to say it.

Produce the evidence. Not the conjecture, assumption or educated guesswork.....not graphics or illustrations based on someone's imagination.....show us the real proof that one "kind" can transform into another "kind" altogether.

You did not say you did not want to entertain, you said you could "not possibly" entertain. If you cannot even entertain the possibility of an event then it is outside the scope of your ability to understand that event. I fully understand your point of view which you have conveyed. And, while I don't believe it is honestly your point of view(I rather believe you are choosing to avoid the question because you do not want to answer), the point of view which to conveyed would not be able to understand any evidence or proof of the assertion because such is beyond the holder's, of said point of view, capability of entertaining.

 

[outhouse]

If evolution exceeds my capacity for imagination, then obviously it only requires imagination to believe it.

Isnt this another way of saying, if im to willfully ignorant to understand something, it doesn't exist?

That is not methodology, it is fanaticism

 

[dust1n]

You know I actually watched most of that video and I never saw anything new in the terminology or in the speculative language that evolutionists are renown for. Listen to what he actually says, not what you think he is saying.

I've already watched the entirety of the class. Note that there are 36 lectures. So you've almost made through the first day of a just one general biology class.

Where do we see the horse turn into something other than a four footed hairy creature in 55 million years?

Horse Evolution Over 55 Million Years

I know the evolutionists here will be frustrated with my immovable stance, but I have not seen anything that convinces me that all life came about through a series of fortunate accidents when things just happened randomly by undirected chance. The "evidence" for that is simply not there, except in the minds of those who make it up. What I have seen so far is not anything close to proving that "the tree of life" is not the one located in the garden of Eden.....Sorry.

Adaptation...yes! Macro-evolution...no way!

Haha.... the tree of life from Eden. Classic.

 

[Sapiens]

If evolution exceeds my capacity for imagination, then obviously it only requires imagination to believe it.

That's one reading, there are other, less flattering, ones.

Given your inability to entertain my point of view, I should ask you the same question....why are you bothering to ask stupid loaded questions that I have no desire to answer?

Wearing blinders is uncomfortable.

Am I under some obligation to entertain you in some manner?

And make each prisoner pent
Unwillingly represent
A source of innocent merriment,
Of innocent merriment!

Sorry to disappoint. I have examined evolution and I do not see one single convincing piece of evidence that anyone has presented that exhibits the slightest bit of proof for anything but adaptation. How many times would you like me to say it.

Might it be that you lack something needed to understand the evidence? Have you considered that possibility?

Produce the evidence. Not the conjecture, assumption or educated guesswork.....not graphics or illustrations based on someone's imagination.....show us the real proof that one "kind" can transform into another "kind" altogether.

Please define "kind" and I'll be glad to.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I was actually a supporter of evolution in my younger days. I had been raised as a believer in Christendom from childhood, but in my teens evolution seemed to make more sense....being the work of scientists and all, it was taught in school. But the more I saw in biology and natural science, the more it screamed at me that none of that could just be the product of blind, undirected chance. Nature itself is full of exquisite design and I already knew that mutations were almost always detrimental to survival, so I started investigating other possibilities.

And yet you have repeatedly shown yourself to be undereducated with regards to biology. You have repeatedly made assertions that show you don't really have any actual knowledge of evolution theory or basic scientific terminology, so I simply cannot believe you have made a sincere and genuine attempt to study biology and natural science.

Also, you have not answered my question: were you a Jehovah's Witness before you started rejecting evolution or not? Also, what sources did you use for your research, if any?

I could not swallow the "young earth" idea of "creationists" because it was very obvious that the earth itself has been around for perhaps billions of years.

Question: How do you know that? Since you have outright rejected all of the evidence gleaned by inference regarding evolution, how could you possibly accept all of the similar evidence for an aged earth?

I looked for explanations in other areas but got no sense of satisfaction. All relied on accepting the theory of macro-evolution as fact. I couldn't see how it was provable.

Nothing is theory is "provable". This is a basic fact of science that you should have gleaned at the very beginning of any kind of scientific research.

I reached the conclusion of an intelligent designer, long before I became a JW. It was their explanations that I found to be the most reasonable. They were at neither extreme. They accepted adaptation as true science, but baulked at the idea that all life came from a single celled organism that magically sprang into life one day billions of years ago.

That still does not answer my question. Did you become a JW before or after you started questioning evolution?

What was the point of all that speculation about how life changed if there was no explanation about how it began?

About as much point as there is in understanding what effect gravity has on matter without having to know the origin of gravity or matter.

Science knows that all life comes from pre-existing life. I happen to believe that the pre-existing life in connection with the earth is the Creator of life itself. The great "first cause" of everything.

So what life created the creator? Or are you committing a special pleading fallacy?

My stance on this issue has not altered from the beginning.

You just above this said that you were a "supporter of evolution" at one point, so you are either lying or a notoriously unreliable narrator of your own story.

I still strongly maintain that there is NO "proof" for the evolutionary "chain" that is claimed by scientists.

"PROOF" does not exist in science. Science deals with EVIDENCE, not PROOF. It is the same kind of conclusions drawn from evidence that demonstrates the truth of evolution as demonstrates the truth of the age of the earth. You have no solid basis on which to reject one for "lack of proof" and yet accept the other.

Just as there is no "proof" for the existence of the Creator.

The bigger problem for science is the lack of evidence.

The evidence is sketchy and inconclusive at best, so there is no sound argument that convinces me.

The fossil record and genetics are not sketchy or inconclusive. The only reasonable explanation for either is evolution, unless you want to propose that all species that have ever lived arranged themselves through time in such a way before randomly going extinct as to show clear and gradual change throughout the geological strata, before other species popped into existence without any prior existing species before them from nothing, and that all of the genetic similarities between species and the sharing of ERV inserts in species claims by evolution theory to be closely related is just pure coincidence. Since you accept that "all life comes from pre-existing life", this makes evolution the only viable option. Either you accept that there is some other way that all of these species in the fossil record appeared spontaneously out of nowhere before randomly going extinct, or the species that existed in the fossil record are the offspring of the species that came before them. Which makes more sense to you?

I believe what I see with my own eyes. I do not need an education in science to speculate about what scientists "think" "might have" taken place before anyone other than God himself was around to document it.

Ahem...

it was very obvious that the earth itself has been around for perhaps billions of years
- You, a couple of paragraphs ago.

So, since you don't believe what isn't directly observed or documented, how exactly did you come to the conclusion that the earth has "very obviously" been around for billions of years? I eagerly anticipate your reply.

The TOE is man's ideas....some believe that the Bible is too.....so choose your position. I have chosen mine, you are free to choose yours.

They aren't necessarily in conflict. Once again, many scientists who accept the theory of evolution are theists - the head of the human genome project himself is a practising Roman Catholic. Nobody here will tell you that to accept the theory of evolution you must be an atheist. That's just simply not true.

But, again, you have no more "evidence" than I do.

Wrong. You even admitted that we have evidence earlier, just that you didn't accept it.

If you do, then show me something that does not require speculation about what "might have" or "could have" taken place by applying a few hundred million years to a process that is "assumed" to have taken place.

So you want an actual demonstration of a process that occurred over millions of years without any evidence gleaned from inference? Good luck with that. How did you conclude the earth is billions of years old again?

 

[gnostic]

What creationists fail to understand is that -

1. Evolution is biology; the Bible is not about biology.
2. Evolution is about life science over why life change over a certain period of time; the Bible does not explain this;
3. Evolution is about why species change (through natural selection, mutation, gene flow), hence biodiversity; evolution is not about the origin of first life, which is abiogenesis, eg how inorganic matter become organic matter.
4. Evolution is evidence-based explanation on the mechanics of biological changes (through mutations and inheritances); the Bible is faith-based mythology (6-days creation, people speaking one language one day and multiple language next (Babel episode), talking serpent and donkey, parting the Red Sea (or the sea of reeds), etc) and religious teachings of supernatural (turning water into wine, walking on water, healing lepers and blind through touch and faith, resurrection, speaking of tongues, etc).

As to Intelligent Design, this is just creationism, in which people are trying to propaganda (PR), misinformation and using intimidation and coercion upon school board to teach creationism/ID in science classes. The ID followers are not using science (scientific method and peer review), but politics and laws to force change in education systems to teach ID and creation as science.

Does creationists/IDs not know that it is wrong to lie?

 

[Christopher Sly]

My flimsy excuse is that I am human. I am guessing. I agree with ImmortalFlame that -

"Proof" does not exist in science

or anywhere else. We can choose to believe anything we wish, but we cannot escape the consequences of our choices. Harsh Truth, I also agree with ImmortalFlame saying -

"you don't understand logic or science"

You have started with a "right answer". This is not science, my friend. There is no way to begin with the data and come up with the scientific theory of intelligent design. It is very "natural" to begin with the data and come up with the scientific theory of evolution, and very difficult to disprove this theory with evidence.

I recently made a video called "Danger at the Beginning." The first stage of the Hero's Journey is called The Call to Adventure. We are all born into a game where reality is constantly poking us with "the question" -

What should you do?

And we are all constantly responding. Those responses have consequences, and you would think that it would not take very long for the epiphany that we are guessing to be triggered by the painful experience of guessing wrong. But uncertainty is frightening, especially for children. Instead of answering the call and moving forward into uncertainty to begin the rising spiral of evolution toward reality, the child may refuse the call, retreat from uncertainty and take refuge in the imagined safety of some "true story" that promises to protect them from their fears in exchange for their obedience. This forces them to blind themselves to the evidence of creation to prevent it from contradicting their true story. It forces them to suffocate the cognitive solution process to prevent it from coming up with answers that challenge their right answer. Instead of a upward rising spiral of evolution toward reality, they spiral downward into delusion, increasingly separated from reality.

I am afraid that your post suggests that you suffer from this mental illness, and that you are a "knower of the truth". You are not allowed to start with the right answer, Jared, and place it on equal standing with a scientific theory that grew out of the evidence. That you believe you can is a sad demonstration of what refusing the call does to our mental capacities. Creationism is a mental illness, and it is time we start calling it what it is..

 

[Sapiens]

My flimsy excuse is that I am human. I am guessing. I agree with ImmortalFlame that -

... The first stage of the Hero's Journey is called The Call to Adventure....And we are all constantly responding. Those responses have consequences, and you would think that it would not take very long for the epiphany that we are guessing to be triggered by the painful experience of guessing wrong. But uncertainty is frightening, especially for children. Instead of answering the call and moving forward into uncertainty to begin the rising spiral of evolution toward reality, the child may refuse the call, retreat from uncertainty and take refuge in the imagined safety of some "true story" that promises to protect them from their fears in exchange for their obedience. This forces them to blind themselves to the evidence of creation to prevent it from contradicting their true story. It forces them to suffocate the cognitive solution process to prevent it from coming up with answers that challenge their right answer. Instead of a upward rising spiral of evolution toward reality, they spiral downward into delusion, increasingly separated from reality.

I am afraid that your post suggests that you suffer from this mental illness, and that you are a "knower of the truth". You are not allowed to start with the right answer, Jared, and place it on equal standing with a scientific theory that grew out of the evidence. That you believe you can is a sad demonstration of what refusing the call does to our mental capacities. Creationism is a mental illness, and it is time we start calling it what it is..

Wonderful analysis, it explains not just his approach to the issue, but why people go to Disney and willfully confuse it with adventure. Thanks.

My son calls it "living the comic book," there is a well known formula: a poor boy who was nobly born meets a wise guide who sends him on a death defying quest to rescue a princess and recover an artifact, etc. It ain't just an "E-ticket" ride and you don't partake of it by reading the Bible.



 

[psychoslice]

I questioned my belief and search for what the others think and believe.

Do you really ?.