Putting the JW Stand on Evolution in Perspective

[oldbadger]

No, it is not. Your prying has nothing to do with the topic. You could have asked what education I have had in the topic, that would have been a valid question.



So basically a high school level.if science education. With some studies in a real science. It appears that you forgot quite a bit of what you have studied since you do not know what a theory is. You calling a theory an assumption would be as wrong as me claiming that you were guessing when it came to thieves.

We're you guessing?




Now you are openly lying about me. You could have had a discussion and learned something, instead you have decided to remain ignorant. Please note I offered to go over what you deem to have such a hard time understanding and instead you have to find excuses not to learn. That is the typical move of creationists too afraid to learn.



There is as I said no need. You are the one that has been less than honest here. You should have asked what my education level was. You are the one that has brought a rubber knife to a fun fight.

I am still willing to go over the basics with you so that you will not repeat the errors that you make that tell us that you never understood even the basics of science.

Bye bye Subduction.......... your last cop-out for me, matey.
see you later.....

 

[Subduction Zone]

Kinda hard to believe coming from someone who doesn't even know what "theory" means in science.


So what do you think all those scientists have been doing for over a century? Twiddling their thumbs and then

The gap in evolution between all else and mankind isn't a theory. It's a guess.
Fill the gap and finish the job, or go back to sleep Jose.


They've been trying to bridge the gap........... keep on trying. When the gap is bridged I hope to be alive to read about it.


Like a drink, do you?

So you were just guessing about thieves.

Since you make false claims about the work of others false claims about your work should not bother you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Bye bye Subduction.......... your last cop-out for me, matey.
see you later.....

I made no cop -out. That is your technique. When someone offers to help you get over your ignorance you have to find an excuse to run away.

If I was a poser a discussion would quickly reveal that. Running away after you bore false witness against others is a cowardly act.

That will only make people wonder why are you so afraid?

 

[Jose Fly]

If you can show that evolution is discovered all the way to mankind then show it! Reports from the media suggest it is still a gap!

No, the "media reports" you posted describe how we haven't identified the last common ancestor of humans and other primates. I tried to get you to understand how that doesn't preclude us from knowing that humans do indeed share a common ancestry with other primates, but you kinda bailed on that.

Tell you what, Jose......... come to that issue or post to somebody else.

I did, you bailed. CLICK HERE to see my last post to you yesterday that you never responded to. Not only that, but when I asked if you were operating under the assumption that we can't say we share an ancestry with other primates until we know which specific species was the last common ancestor, you said "No".

So what "issue" are you wanting to discuss?

 

[YmirGF]

I made no cop -out. That is your technique. When someone offers to help you get over your ignorance you have to find an excuse to run away.

If I was a poser a discussion would quickly reveal that. Running away after you bore false witness against others is a cowardly act.

That will only make people wonder why are you so afraid?

I guess that's because Evolution is "only" a theory. Just ignore the fact that that particular theory has more evidence behind it than any other theory. It isn't complete so we can ignore it!

 

[Subduction Zone]

I guess that's because Evolution is "only" a theory. Just ignore the fact that that particular theory has more evidence behind it than any other theory. It isn't complete so we can ignore it!

For some reason the theory of evolution is very threatening to some sects of Christianity. In attacking it those Christians seem to have no compulsion to follow the Ninth Commandment. I seriously wonder if it is due to a weak faith that they do not want to lose.

It is sad that so many cannot have a polite discussion on the matter. When they expose their own ignorance they take it as an insult rather than accepting an offer to correct that state. That appears to be a fear based reaction to me.

 

[YmirGF]

For some reason the theory of evolution is very threatening to some sects of Christianity. In attacking it those Christians seem to have no compulsion to follow the Ninth Commandment. I seriously wonder if it is due to a weak faith that they do not want to lose.

It is sad that so many cannot have a polite discussion on the matter. When they expose their own ignorance they take it as an insult rather than accepting an offer to correct that state. That appears to be a fear based reaction to me.

Maybe I'm just stupid, but I rather like finding out I'm wrong. Well, that one time it happened.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Maybe I'm just stupid, but I rather like finding out I'm wrong. Well, that one time it happened.

Me too. Sometimes it takes a while, but if someone pointed out where I went wrong I did not take personal offence.

One of the epic battles that I started on the wrong side of was that of DDWFTTW. You can Google the acronym. Some of the debate on that would make one's head spin.

 

[oldbadger]

So you were just guessing about thieves.

Since you make false claims about the work of others false claims about your work should not bother you.

How amazingly ignorant your comment above, is.
All lot of science investigation starts out with guesses and 'what if's'. True.
Much science success comes from complete accidents.

Now it's time for your openess and honesty.
Let go of any posturing and pretensions and tell us who you really are, as in what work you did in science, why you left, and what you do now.
I tell you this..... only creeps laugh at people's truth. I won't throw any of your truth in to your face.

IOf you can't do it, you know what other readers will think.

 

[oldbadger]

I made no cop -out. That is your technique. When someone offers to help you get over your ignorance you have to find an excuse to run away.

If I was a poser a discussion would quickly reveal that. Running away after you bore false witness against others is a cowardly act.

That will only make people wonder why are you so afraid?

There you go again....... talking dowen, shouting 'ignorance' and calling 'cowardly act'.

If you have ever worked as a scientist, tell us at what, and why you left. Tell us what you do now. The difference between us is that I won't laugh at your truth.

But you lost this discussion absolutely when another member's post caused me to investigate how far evolution search has come to closing the gap twixt all else and mankind.

That produced the 'Guess' factor. That produced the 'belief' factor.
And then another member started to quote Science Doctrine at me, and then 'BINGO!' we've got believing, faith, guessing and doctrine, and if you stuff all of those in to one box, you've got a religion.

OMG............. and now just watch you lot shouting out the insults and the personal comments. Methinks I touched on something there.

I don't believe that you are able to, but try and just staret the dialogue again with your life truths, and I will offer mine. Can you do it?

 

[Subduction Zone]

How amazingly ignorant your comment above, is.
All lot of science investigation starts out with guesses and 'what if's'. True.
Much science success comes from complete accidents.

Wrong again. We were not talking about the beginning of an idea. We were talking about a theory. Even hypotheses are past the guessing stage. Yes, a lot of science does come from original "guesses", but that is only the barest of beginnings.

Now it's time for your openess and honesty.
Let go of any posturing and pretensions and tell us who you really are, as in what work you did in science, why you left, and what you do now.
I tell you this..... only creeps laugh at people's truth. I won't throw any of your truth in to your face.

IOf you can't do it, you know what other readers will think.

I worked for a while for the Minnesota Geological Survey. Mainly accurately locating water wells and then interpreting the well logs and entering them into a computerized data base. It was rather low level stuff. But it helped to give a statewide ability to analyze ground water flow throughout the state. When the project ended, as they tend to, I moved on.

Right now I am semi-retired, which explains why I have too much time to post here.

Now by your standards what you did in regards to thieves was guessing. Tell me, if someone seriously claimed that would you be insulted? That is what you are doing when you say that evolution is a guess. We are all ignorant about some things. I am sure that I am totally ignorant in the field that you worked in. What is bad is when one is ignorant and makes claims about something that they do not understand and then get's angry when someone else points out their ignorance.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There you go again....... talking dowen, shouting 'ignorance' and calling 'cowardly act'.

It is no "talking down". It is merely the truth. If you are uncomfortable with this why do you continually make your lack of knowledge in this area so obvious?

If you have ever worked as a scientist, tell us at what, and why you left. Tell us what you do now. The difference between us is that I won't laugh at your truth.

But you lost this discussion absolutely when another member's post caused me to investigate how far evolution search has come to closing the gap twixt all else and mankind.

No, even if I did not tell you what I did I was not the loser here. I never made false claims about others. And what "gap" are you complaining about? There really is no "gap". DNA closed it.

That produced the 'Guess' factor. That produced the 'belief' factor.
And then another member started to quote Science Doctrine at me, and then 'BINGO!' we've good believing, faith, guessing and doctrine, and if you stuff all of those in to one box, you've got a religion.

Again with the false claims about others. There is no "Guess factor". Nor is there any Science Doctrine. There is only the scientific method. You keep complaining when we point out your ignorance and you keep making false claims about scientists that only confirms our claims.

OMG............. and now just watch you lot shouting out the insults and the personal comments. Methinks I touched on something there.

I don't believe that you are able to, but try and just staret the dialogue again with your life truths, and I will offer mine. Can you do it?

Observations are not insults. If anything you are projecting again Tell me, what difference would it make if I had never worked in the field? My ability to support my claims would still be the same. I am not the one that derailed this thread. You got all bent out of shape when your errors were pointed out to you.

 

[oldbadger]

No, the "media reports" you posted describe how we haven't identified the last common ancestor of humans and other primates. I tried to get you to understand how that doesn't preclude us from knowing that humans do indeed share a common ancestry with other primates, but you kinda bailed on that.

No Jose........ the media reports describe how we have not identified ANY common ancestors of humans in a continuous 'journey' to mankind.

Jose, leave out the personal bulldust of me bailing out and all the rest.

You're a scientist, right? (what did/do you do?). So come on...... use your skills to demonstrate to me how this gap does not cause a level of 'estimation' or 'guesswork'. Show me how this does not form a 'belief' in your mind that evoluition 'all the way to man' is right? And Jose, you've pushed a bit of science doctrine at me really, haven't you? All together you've gott yourself in to guessing, believing, doctrine./..... you've founded a religion, the 'Evolution Religion' Wow!

Now most folks here believe absolutely in evolution, I think that @Hockeycowboy made mention of that in one post..... but there's just this little problem with that gap. Some scientists are keeping an open mind about it, I guess that's a good idea. But you're sunk in to your own Faith and Religion, the way you talk.

 

[oldbadger]

Wrong again. We were not talking about the beginning of an idea. We were talking about a theory. Even hypotheses are past the guessing stage. Yes, a lot of science does come from original "guesses", but that is only the barest of beginnings.

So Science search can start with guesses and 'what ifs', Subduction.
I'm cool with that.

I worked for a while for the Minnesota Geological Survey. Mainly accurately locating water wells and then interpreting the well logs and entering them into a computerized data base. It was rather low level stuff. But it helped to give a statewide ability to analyze ground water flow throughout the state. When the project ended, as they tend to, I moved on.

OK....... how hard was that to explain? Cool.
One day you might open a thread about well location by various means and offer any critique of divining that you may have. That would be interesting.

Right now I am semi-retired, which explains why I have too much time to post here.

That's cool. When I retired in Dec 2009 I joined a mate's company as a part-time carpet cleaner. Loved it. Was taking carpet off-cuts home and putting 'impossible' stains on them and then researching how (if ever) to get them out. I quit in 2014 because my wife was in Kings London, very ill. They saved her but I never went back to work. Even this week a neighbour asked me if I could get permanent red ink out of her Mum's white carpet....... her little son had found a permanent marker..... and I could. I learned many secrets....

Now by your standards what you did in regards to thieves was guessing. Tell me, if someone seriously claimed that would you be insulted?

Of course not........ much scientific search starts with questions, ideas, guesses, needs etc.... sometimes it just happens when it's lucky.
Interest Selection started with a strong belief, that retailers are snobby and only watch nasty looking folks, so they tend(ed) only to catch nasty looking folks, which cemented their prejudices more firmly...... prejudicial imprinting.

My work started to catch thieves that seriously shocked the retailers, they had to rethink somewhat. Who would bother to take interest in a nun, or the local detective inspector, or the schoolteacher etc? That is how I was paid to go to college to become a teacher. I began to write lesson plans, make films and deliver these..... I traveled the UK for the next fifteen years and was a retail specialist on our national security mag, a trade only magazine of course.

That is what you are doing when you say that evolution is a guess.

Not evolution...... just the bridge to mankind.

I must go.....

 

[Subduction Zone]

No Jose........ the media reports describe how we have not identified ANY common ancestors of humans in a continuous 'journey' to mankind.

Jose, leave out the personal bulldust of me bailing out and all the rest.

You're a scientist, right? (what did/do you do?). So come on...... use your skills to demonstrate to me how this gap does not cause a level of 'estimation' or 'guesswork'. Show me how this does not form a 'belief' in your mind that evoluition 'all the way to man' is right? And Jose, you've pushed a bit of science doctrine at me really, haven't you? All together you've gott yourself in to guessing, believing, doctrine./..... you've founded a religion, the 'Evolution Religion' Wow!

Now most folks here believe absolutely in evolution, I think that @Hockeycowboy made mention of that in one post..... but there's just this little problem with that gap. Some scientists are keeping an open mind about it, I guess that's a good idea. But you're sunk in to your own Faith and Religion, the way you talk.

Why do you think that finding the fossil remnants of a common ancestor is so important? The DNA evidence is a slam dunk for evolution alone. Fossils are obvious evidence to those without much education in the matter, and the fossil record will always be incomplete by its very nature. Complaining about "gaps" when every fossil found only confirms the theory and with millions of fossils found you claim looks rather pathetic.

By the way, "estimation" is not "guesswork". You never answered my question if you were guessing about thieves. I am sure that you have far less evidence for your conclusions about thieves than scientists have for the theory of evolution. A lack of understanding on your part does not make the ability to understand the science "religion". You are once again projecting your flaws upon others and trying to insult them in doing so.

 

[Deeje]

@Hockeycowboy and @Deeje .......how is it going for you?

G'day OB....doing OK....how about yourself?

You know, I've always believed in a metaphorical creation description from Genesis, but evolution hasn't reached all the way to mankind yet, and some members writing posts here, the self appointed scientists who call out the insults about our education, intellect and even mental abilities, aren't actually scientists at all.

The armchair critics are a dime a dozen OB. Insults are supposed to replace evidence and anything offered in defence of creation is completely dismissed out of hand. There is middle ground that allows for the Bible and true science (as opposed to the theoretical kind) to be reconciled. Since the Creator designed and made what science studies, how could it be otherwise?

Hockey, I read something from you that you accept some part of evolution. Deeje, I get the impression that you support Genesis to the word?

@Hockeycowboy and I agree completely. I support Genesis as it is written but with understanding of how the original language applies but is not conveyed accurately enough in English IMO.

This is supposed to be a discussion thread, so can we make it one?

Sounds good to me.

Please post to me about what you believe, and I'll post to you what I think might be possible, and if we share our thoughts together then this thread will be a discussion...... but I don't think you'll get one otherwise.

There is nothing new ever presented on these threads, especially if they involve JW's.....you just get the idea from the "science buffs" that we 'creationists' accept the "big wizard in the sky speaking everything into existence like magic", but nothing could be further from the truth for us. Because we alone are created in the image of our Maker, I believe that we actually create like he does. We begin with an idea, and then gather the materials and begin to form the 'bare bones' of what we are intending to make......and we keep working on it till we stand back and are satisfied with it. All artists know that not every work we produce meets with that final satisfaction. Often you will find many versions of the same subject, but only one will make the grade from the artist's perspective.

The fact that God concludes each creative period with an expression of satisfaction indicates that he was pleased with his final effort. What he planned to accomplish in each time period met with his satisfaction.

There were 6 creative periods that are called "days" in Genesis, but there is nothing in the original language that limits these periods to 24 hours. They were allotted times for the planned creative activity that took place within that period. They could well have been millions of Earth years long. The Creator is not restricted by time.
A slow and deliberate creation fits with what science understands to be true, but disagrees with the YEC scenario of 7 literal days for all that creation to take place.
The fact that there is no declaration of satisfaction in connection with the 7th day, indicates to us (and is supported in scripture) that the 7th day has not yet concluded. When it does, all will be exactly as the Creator planned.....it will all be "very good". Humans will have chosen their own position with regard to the Creator and will thus have chosen their own destiny.

The fact that Genesis tells us about the original condition of the Earth as "a formless waste" indicates that originally this planet was like all the rest...inhospitable to life. There was a long period of preparation before any life was produced. How could the writer of Genesis know that this was the case? How did he know that the first sentient life began with marine creatures and flying creatures?

The Bible does not mention the abundant microscopic life that God put in place early to facilitate the endless recycling that takes place in nature, breaking down the environment to feed the plant life and to keep the earth clean and eco-systems functioning. It's all so beautifully and thoughtfully planned, if you stop denying the possibility of a powerful Creator who is not a magician but uses his power in a controlled way.

We see no reason to reject what science knows, but will disagree with what science "believes" but cannot prove. When you have to rely on interpretation of evidence, then the spiritually minded will see direct creation that is well designed and executed rather than relying on an endless series of fortunate mutations that they cannot prove ever happened on the scale that would have been necessary.

That is briefly what I believe to be true.

I'm talking with you from now on here, together with any polite posts from polite members.

Good idea OB....let's invite the polite and open minded people who might like to discuss, rather than just hurl insults as if unproven science cannot possibly be wrong.
In my view, these have as much of a "belief system" as we do. If their evidence was not interpreted for them, I don't think they would ever arrive at their conclusions.

Deliberate design is never accidental. There is way too much thoughtful planning in nature to have ever been the result of so many beneficial flukes.

Over to you.....

 

[Subduction Zone]

So Science search can start with guesses and 'what ifs', Subduction.
I'm cool with that.

Yes, but what makes science "science" is what comes next Those ideas are tested and retested. Making them no longer guesses and what ifs.

OK....... how hard was that to explain? Cool.
One day you might open a thread about well location by various means and offer any critique of divining that you may have. That would be interesting.

No, it was really rather boring. These were wells that were already drilled. Finding them was relatively easy. Not much skill was need to place them accurately on a topographical map. Though I may be wrong about that. Some people simply can't do that.

That's cool. When I retired in Dec 2009 I joined a mate's company as a part-time carpet cleaner. Loved it. Was taking carpet off-cuts home and putting 'impossible' stains on them and then researching how (if ever) to get them out. I quit in 2014 because my wife was in Kings London, very ill. They saved her but I never went back to work. Even this week a neighbour asked me if I could get permanent red ink out of her Mum's white carpet....... her little son had found a permanent marker..... and I could. I learned many secrets....

There is a lot that can be learned in many fields.

Of course not........ much scientific search starts with questions, ideas, guesses, needs etc.... sometimes it just happens when it's lucky.
Interest Selection started with a strong belief, that retailers are snobby and only watch nasty looking folks, so they tend(ed) only to catch nasty looking folks, which cemented their prejudices more firmly...... prejudicial imprinting.

Interesting. I know that "boosting" is a major problem these days due to drug addiction. My housemate once had an addiction problem and still knows far too many people in that community for my comfort. We were at a major retailer shortly after they had opened and she saw some people that she knew. She told me that they were probably there to shoplift. Some retailers are too busy doing other chores when the stores first open. I do not even remember noticing them myself, I only remember her comments after we left.

My work started to catch thieves that seriously shocked the retailers, they had to rethink somewhat. Who would bother to take interest in a nun, or the local detective inspector, or the schoolteacher etc? That is how I was paid to go to college to become a teacher. I began to write lesson plans, make films and deliver these..... I traveled the UK for the next fifteen years and was a retail specialist on our national security mag, a trade only magazine of course.

Nice. A lot of your work probably followed the scientific method. You avoided preconceptions with is a useful start.

Not evolution...... just the bridge to mankind.

I must go.....

Why just the bridge to mankind? You do realize that we have very good records going back to Lucy, the steps from Lucy to man are not that large. Lucy was still about 3 million years after the common ancestor that man and chimps share. Yet she is what most creationists call "an ape". The problem is of course that talking about a link between "man and ape" is as silly as talking about a link between "German Shepherds and dog". People are apes. We never stopped being apes. Just as we are mammals. We never stopped being mammals. Understanding cladistics would help you understand evolution. Your separation of man from other animals amounts to a special pleading fallacy. When you get back we can go over some of the DNA evidence if you would like.

 

[nPeace]

So? There are always unanswered problems in the sciences. This does not support @Hockeycowboy 's post. And you do realize that most of those have been answered, don't you?

So it does refute your statements.
I'm not sure you realize that the article said, Some of the questions that evolutionary biologists are trying to answer include:
Why do you think it says, "Some of the questions ....include"?
There are many more questions that would probably make the page longer than they want it to be.

Yes, during Darwin's time the fossil record was very sparse. But then that was to be expected. Serious collecting had barely begun. Even in Darwin's lifetime one a major transitional form was found that confirmed his theory.

Yes, the few "bones" they desperately put their assumptions on, are necessary to save the theory.
Could you imagine another 150 years without having transitional fossils?

...if my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking most closely all the species of the same group together, must assuredly have existed

Although that didn't happen... in the minds of the evolutionists... it did.

Or course it did since DNA proved the theory of evolution far beyond a reasonable doubt. Only the incredibly dishonest or incredibly ignorant can deny the theory now.

The only thing that has "proved" the theory of evolution, is the wishful thinking of mostly atheist.
Evolution has not been proven, and DNA doesn't speak in it's favor. It's only the interpretations of scientists that speak.
Have you heard DNA say anything? If you did, you probably heard it say, "Intelligent design!", and you interpreted that to be, "I was not designed."

There is nothing that can "prove" evolution happened - In hindsight, there is... seeing it happen, just as we see our children grow. I'll be a million years by then.
They don't even know how the thing is supposed to work, or the mechanism that drives it.

I was listening to a panel consisting of some of your favorite people - heroes to you, and hundreds more...
These people are like gods to their fans. Do you deny that? Keep going.
It was interesting watching them actually. As usual, your friend Richard always gives me a good laugh.
Like at 11:02 - 11:42

A question was raised...
Someone said we have a deep understanding of cosmology, and if scientists could fully understand the origins of life; consciousness; etc... then ?
A Dawkins' question duh.
Dawkins: "No amount of proof..."

What?
! said to myself, 'These are scientist? Proof? Is there a name that defines a person that practices scientism?'
There really can't be any proof, can they?

The cosmological constant may not be constant, after all
Measurements suggest dark energy may fluctuate, throwing current models of the universe into doubt.

Reliance on Indirect Evidence Fuels Dark Matter Doubts
Pinning down the universe's missing mass remains one of cosmology's biggest challenges

Alternative Theories of Cosmology
Nowadays there are many models of cosmology trying to describe the mechanism of our universe as a whole. The most famous and popular model is the Big Bang cosmology, often called the Standard Model(SM) , according to which the universe was created through a gigantic explosion in 14 billion years ago. As the SM’s theoretical predictions are almost compatible with observational data, cosmologists has spent much of their time to improve and make it more precise. However, there are some who believe that the theory is wrong and a new theory should be used. They have developed different models and theories. But these theories have not become as popular as the SM. So they have too many problems which have not been discussed yet.

Doubts About Big Bang Cosmology
...every civilization known to anthropology has put together such meagre observations as it possesses, has interpreted them in the light of currently fashionable ideas, and then manufactured as plausible a cosmological story as it can to tell its students and its children. The trouble is that none of those cosmologies have stood the test of time. Have we any reason to be more confident in the Big Bang Cosmology (BBC) which is fashionable today?
........
(C) Cosmology requires us to extrapolate what physics we know over huge ranges in space and time, where such extrapolations have rarely, if ever, worked in physics before. Take gravitation for instance. When we extrapolate the Inverse Square Law (dress it up how you will as G.R.) from the Solar System where it was established, out to galaxies and clusters of galaxies, it simply never works. We cover up this scandal by professing to believe in “Dark Matter” – for which independent evidence is lacking.

Cosmology is in crisis – but not for the reason you may think
Science is advancing rapidly. We are eradicating diseases, venturing further into space and discovering a growing zoo of subatomic particles. But cosmology – which is trying to understand the evolution of the entire universe using theories that work well to describe other systems – is struggling to answer many of its most fundamental questions.

We still have no idea what the vast majority of the universe is made of. We struggle to understand how the Big Bang could suddenly arise from nothing or where the energy for "inflation", a very short period of rapid growth in the early universe, came from. But despite these gaps in knowledge, it is actually human nature – our tendency to interpret data to fit our beliefs – that is the biggest threat to modern cosmology.

List of unsolved problems in physics

It is really amusing, how persons behave as though they are so brilliant, and the scientists that just relish in the glory, as though they are gods, and their worshipers who seem as though they want to just kiss the feet of these men.
I am reminded of Nimrod, described as a "mighty hunter in opposition to Jehovah". Genesis 10:8-10

Just modern day Nimrods relishing in glory... short lived glory.

Even this video shows that this is pure scientism these guys are promoting.
Did Charles Darwin prove anything? No.
How did he prove that life came from nothing, or almost nothing? He didn't.

The bottom line...
No one can say they know for certain, the origin of life. I know. I know. Chemical evolution is not biological evolution.
Scientists are doubtful about their own theories - including the theory of evolution, for which they don't even know the mechanism that would allow it to work.
So all they have are a whole heap of suppositions - assumptions they wish were true, and from which they create fairytale stories, and teach them to the unwary, and gullible imo.
They cannot demonstrate any of these myths to be true, but they are happy to accept these, while alluding to Christian literature as myths.

On the other hand, there seems to be clear evidence that the Christian literature contains true accounts - there is evidence everywhere of a worldwide flood. There is evidence for intelligent design.
We know for example, that reason comes from a mind, plans are from a mind, design requires a designer.
All of this we see in all the systems in the universe.
This is so obvious that even these strong opposers of intelligent design admit it, in one breath, even though they deny it in another.

Lawrence Krauss probably didn't realize how he showed that in what he said. Take a listen, at 7:45
Life was driven by reason, he says. Say what?
The universe is alive, and has a mind.

As we know, the only way something can be guided by reason, is if there is intelligence involved.
So no matter how hard atheist fight to deny the truth, it always will come out. Poor guys.

The truth of this scripture is always resounding. It's like an echo, or reverberation that you just can't get to go away.
For God’s wrath is being revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who are suppressing the truth in an unrighteous way, because what may be known about God is clearly evident among them, for God made it clear to them. For his invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable. (Romans 1:18-20)
Suppressing it won't make it go away now would it? Be reasonable.

It seems to me that the JWs rejection of the evolution theory, is a sensible and reasonable one.
They appreciate truth - what can be shown to be true. The are not move from sound reason, by wishful thinking.
I mean, we have scientists promoting scientism as scientific fact. Imagine that!

Thankfully they likely make up the minority of scientists, because if 90% scientists were like them, science would be a total joke, and being a scientist would be an embarrassment. I think the 10% would quit, and find another field of employment.

We all know that there is no scientific fact that supports any amount of ideas that wishful thinkers could come up with.
Why would any sensible human being exchange the truth for a lie. That doesn't make any sense.
Since we are speaking about sense, I think it is fair to mention a fact about those under attack here..
Far from JWs receiving a misinformed indoctrination, they are well informed. They understand that evolution works in the mind of those who believe, not because they know it happened, but because they are perhaps relying on opinions leaning towards believe in it happening.

We appreciate science as is mentioned at 23:12 - 23:30 of the video. Do the research, but keep the scientism to self, and recognize others research. That is how we view science. As regards evolution being good science, that is a different story, imo.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

by any kind of definition a theory is an assumption, and therefore a kind of faith,

A scientific theory is not an assumption. It is a falsifiable, overarching narrative that accounts for the relevant evidence, often accompanied by a confirmed prediction of something unexpected before the theory suggested looking for it.

Faith, by which I mean insufficiently supported belief, isn't needed if there is evidence to justify the belief. Personally, I don't use the word faith to mean justified belief, although others do, as when they say that they have faith that their car will start the next time they turn it over like it did the last 500 times it was tested. I call that justified belief, not faith, to avoid ambiguity and equivocation.

a bunch of scientists who support external intervention by a higher intelligence has not been junked

And I doubt that the possibility of an intelligent designer can ever be ruled out. But the possibility also need not be considered seriously until such a hypothesis is needed. As Occam reminds us in his principle of parsimony, the simplest explanation that accounts for all relevant observations to date is the preferred one. If man can fully describe how is world works and how it developed without invoking gods, then it would be inappropriate to inject one into that explanation. If a future observation is best accounted for by positing a deity, that will be the time to give the idea more credence.

some JWs do perceive early Genesis as metaphor.

A metaphor for what? For what really happened? How does that differ from an error? Metaphors are understood to be such when they are offered. They are not mistaken for literal truth, as when we say that she was the apple of his eye. We know what that apple represents, and we know that there is no literal apple in his eye, nor that the object of his affection is an apple. That's not the case with Genesis. There is no evidence that the creation story, the Garden story, or the flood story were not meant to be understood as history.

You believe in a guess about the bridge between evolution and mankind. That's a faith. No science there......

Faith is not necessary when there is supporting evidence, the proper interpretation of which is science. We have a great deal of evidence that man evolved from ancestral apes, enough to believe that this occurred with a high degree of confidence just this side of certainty. I can't think of another possibility for the existence of humanity apart from intelligent design, for which there is insufficient evidence to justify belief.

Sure, you can say that this doesn't rule out an intelligent designer, and I would agree. But the mere fact that something has not been shown to be impossible is not an acceptable criterion for belief for the reason and evidence based thinker.

 

[oldbadger]

Why do you think that finding the fossil remnants of a common ancestor is so important? The DNA evidence is a slam dunk for evolution alone. Fossils are obvious evidence to those without much education in the matter, and the fossil record will always be incomplete by its very nature. Complaining about "gaps" when every fossil found only confirms the theory and with millions of fossils found you claim looks rather pathetic.

Some scientists are still open minded about the possibility of outside interference between the evolution links and mankind.
It's just a pity that none are here, on this thread, if at all on RF.

By the way, "estimation" is not "guesswork". You never answered my question if you were guessing about thieves.

No.... guessing about Interest Selector values.... these mostly became flexible values although some became close to certainties..... no, even those had an estimated value, however strong they were.

Analogies are imperfect, but the aspirin is a possible example.
Aspirin's can kill some people, even in small doses. That produces a 'guess' however outside or imperceptible. A neighbour here would become very very ill if he took a single aspirin.

I am sure that you have far less evidence for your conclusions about thieves than scientists have for the theory of evolution. A lack of understanding on your part does not make the ability to understand the science "religion". You are once again projecting your flaws upon others and trying to insult them in doing so.

I would never compare any work that I ever did with other areas of search..... not so...
And a gap is a gap, by any other name.

What I intend to do now is leave this thread for a time, and go to find out more about what the specialists say about their search and research in to the links with mankind from all else. Many researchers will probably be detached scientists, and obviously their views would impress me most.