Putting the JW Stand on Evolution in Perspective

[Jose Fly]

Nice rock, that one you just chucked!
Lousy for accuracy, though.

Then why don't you discuss the subject in an adult manner? Are you capable and just not interested, interested but incapable, or neither capable nor interested?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ha ha ha!
Another expert...... Another impost, perhaps?

I never claimed to be an expert. I merely know much more than you do. But when it comes to this topic that is setting the bar very low. Haven't I offered to go over the basics of science with you? I won't lecture, you would need to participate. Learning the basics would help you enormously.

 

[Audie]

Yuk!
Have you been watching too many horror movies?!!

I never watch those. Creo shows,
like some that have been displayed
here are bad enough.

Anyway, I borrowed the expression
from Hunter S Thompson who was
describing some American politician.

Still, the way our creos keep trying to
revive their zombie ideas does naturally
lead to images of corpses being made to thrash
about.

 

[Audie]

Why can't you just correct your obvious error? It's okay, we all make mistakes sometimes.

We believe it would cause a creationist to detonate.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I think of early Genesis stories as metaphor

Metaphor for what? I asked you earlier but got no reply. I mentioned that metaphors are generally understood to be metaphors when they are written or spoken. 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, nor that anybody ever thought otherwise.

That's not the case with Genesis. There is no reason to believe that the Genesis creation story, the garden story, and the flood story weren't believed to be historical accounts.To me, these are simply guesses that were wrong, a fact not known to the ancients. Today, many Christians acknowledge that the stories cannot be true thanks to scientific progress. This creates a dilemma that is often resolved by claiming that the words don't mean what they say, and so aren't incorrect - just some trope, some rhetorical device.

But science has not helped rising seas, global warming, etc.

Nor will it. That's not science's job. Science only provides the answers. It does not implement them. The scientists have been explaining the science of global warming and its relationship to greenhouse gases and petrochemical emissions, as well as foretelling about changes that will be undesirable if things don't change soon. If you're unhappy with what's been done with that information, look to government and industry, not science.

Incidentally, we did our part. In 2011, we had eight photovoltaic panels and a solar water heater installed on our roof . Why wait for government?

I wonder what exactly do you think geneticists should look for in order to identify the "manipulated" sequences?

Craig Venter inserted symbolic substitution code into his semisynthetic DNA - so called watermarks.

And still, cannot account for all the evidence, such as instinct, or symbiosis between unrelated organisms.

The theory of evolution does not attempt to explain such things except to say that they resulted from genetic variation subjected to natural selection. Just how that resulted in consciousness, instincts, or giraffes - what changes occurred in what order - is not a part of theory.

The ToE itself is going through some drastic ‘evolving’....with intelligent help.

The theory isn't changing. It's still says that genetic variation + natural selection + time leads to the evolution of living things. Everything else that reveals what happened and according to what time line is something other than the theory.

Are you referring to Jehovah’s Witnesses?

When I wrote, "They have contempt for the world, and so make worldly a derogatory word. Likewise with flesh. Apparently, flesh is evil, too, as in the desires of the flesh. That is no doubt because they are in a big hurry to leave both - our world and their bodies," I was referring to Christianity in general. I don't know the Jehovah's Witness theology specifically.

However, this current system, of men ruling and hurting other men — the world in this sense — it’s not Jehovah’s Witnesses who make it a derogatory term....the Bible itself does;

OK. Thanks for that.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Could it be that some of the things said by the creationists might ring true with the readers here.

No. I haven't experienced that, nor seen evidence that anybody else has, either. You have no argument or evidence, and you decide what's true about the world by faith. How is that going to ring true to a rational skeptic?

why else would the responses be so terse and intense

You probably wouldn't like the answer, but people find you offensive and don't approve of what you do here. That's why they answer you with intense criticism and rebuke. Not surprisingly, you see that as evidence that you're on to something and we know it, but resist.

Nothing changes in these responses except the posters...the content is exactly the same.

Why would the rebuttals to the small handful of claims creationists repeatedly make change? They are sound. There is still no barrier known to prevent what you call macroevolution, for example, even though you never define it precisely. Were you hoping for a different rebuttal every time? If so, why? Or your incredulity arguments. You just can't see how it could have happened without an intelligent designer, so therefore it didn't. How many ways are there to rebut that other than to say that you've committed an incredulity fallacy, that you've ruled out naturalisitic processes without justification, and that nature is not dependent on what you can and cannot imagine.

As long as you keep making the same mistakes, you'll read the same criticisms.

You don't even know that the macro version of evolution is even possible

More relevantly, we don't know that it isn't, and have no reason to believe that it isn't possible. We also don't know if any gods exist. They don't appear to be needed.

You assume it must have happened because evolution has to be true. (there can be no other explanation!)

Now you're projecting. I've never scratched supernaturalistic possibilities from my candidate list of possible sources for the universe and the life in it, whereas you have dropped naturalistic causes from yours. My list has two entries - naturalistic on top, and supernaturalistic a distant second. Show me some irreducible complexity, and I'll drop naturalistic causes from my list and accept the hypothesis of an intelligent designer. Nothing would or could change your opinion.

The theory of evolution is the best explanation for observed reality.

Science's "overwhelming evidence" is only "overwhelming" to you guys.

Then learn how to interpret evidence rather than ignoring it. But first, learn how to see it.

It doesn't amount to a hill of beans to us.

Why would it? You don't use evidence to decide how the world works. You go to holy books and religious tracts.

Do you still see yourself as an intellectual force to be reckoned with, one whose opinions carry weight with reason and evidence based thinkers? Do you think that people are swayed by what you can and cannot see from a perspective of scientific ignorance?

You shouldn't. Many posters have told you how you are perceived here, and what your rhetorical ethos is. They have commented on your lack of knowledge, and the ethics of bad faith disputation. You obviously don't care, but neither do they care about ill-formed and underinformed opinions driven by a faith-based agenda.

 

[ecco]

Thankyou for your patronising praise.
Yeah......now let's look at the real you, eh?
You've let yourself down quite a bit here.
You think you're clever, but all that you have shown to objective readers is that you have decided upon an outcome before it has happened.
You couldn't have known it, but that is a subjective mindset, and as such is a typical example of the pseudo-science that I've been discussing with Deeje and Hockeycowboy.
That ain't science, Ecco...... it's subjective pseudo-science. Looks like you've joined my P-S club, right there, .at this time.

Well, let's take a look at some other famous "at this time" instances.

Way back when, someone asked what causes lightning. The response was AGodDidIt. The honest answer would have been "We don't know, at this time".

More recently...

There was a time that science believed that the atom was the elementary building block of all things.
Some folks recognized that that probably was wrong. As to what it could be, they said we don't know at this time.

There was a time that science believed that electrons and neutrons and protons were the elementary building block of all things.
Some folks recognized that that probably was wrong. As to what it could be, they said we don't know at this time.

There was a time that science believed that quarks were the elementary building block of all things.
Some folks recognized that that probably was wrong. As to what it could be, they said we don't know at this time.


You can mock yourself all you want. But when you said "So...... yeah..... there are missing links alright, and we just can't fill the gaps at this time" you were right on the money. It doesn't happen very often so give yourself a pat on the back.

 

[oldbadger]

Metaphor for what? I asked you earlier but got no reply. I mentioned that metaphors are generally understood to be metaphors when they are written or spoken. 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, nor that anybody ever thought otherwise.

I must have missed your post. You probably also replied to my post about forensic evidence as well. It's been a busy time here.

I perceive early Genesis as metaphor. You must perceive it as you will.

That's not the case with Genesis. There is no reason to believe that the Genesis creation story, the garden story, and the flood story weren't believed to be historical accounts.To me, these are simply guesses that were wrong, a fact not known to the ancients. Today, many Christians acknowledge that the stories cannot be true thanks to scientific progress. This creates a dilemma that is often resolved by claiming that the words don't mean what they say, and so aren't incorrect - just some trope, some rhetorical device.

There probably was a great flood, just not a worldwide one. The rest of early Genesis for me is metaphor.

Nor will it. That's not science's job. Science only provides the answers. It does not implement them. The scientists have been explaining the science of global warming and its relationship to greenhouse gases and petrochemical emissions, as well as foretelling about changes that will be undesirable if things don't change soon. If you're unhappy with what's been done with that information, look to government and industry, not science.

Science is just knowledge, but there is also the Science which is mankind's use of what knowledge s/he possesses. You can't force the whole world to see it your way.

Incidentally, we did our part. In 2011, we had eight photovoltaic panels and a solar water heater installed on our roof . Why wait for government?

Many homes around here have many more than 8 panels, and outside my home I can see more windfarms than most folks could possibly imagine. The local Whitstable/Herne Bay farm is huge, but the distant London array Farm is gigantic. Our government has not been sleeping.

But the damage is done, and the sea is rising. I've read somewhere that if all the ice in the World melts, then sea levels would rise by 70 meters. I think sea levels will rise more than 1 meter in the next 100 years, myself.

 

[oldbadger]

I never watch those. Creo shows,
like some that have been displayed
here are bad enough.

Anyway, I borrowed the expression
from Hunter S Thompson who was
describing some American politician.

Still, the way our creos keep trying to
revive their zombie ideas does naturally
lead to images of corpses being made to thrash
about.

I had never read or heard of that word before.......
creos......
Oh well.......

 

[Audie]

I had never read or heard of that word before.......
creos......
Oh well.......

Just one of many things you aint never heard of.

 

[Audie]

I


There probably was a great flood, just not a worldwide one.

How great?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

So if you accept this as accurate,you accept it that
the biblical account is bs.

How does that follow? Please explain.

 

[Audie]

How does that follow? Please explain.

Really?

The creatures / plants of the cambrian
were not exactly the ducks and olive trees
of biblical creation.

Of course, now that it is all metaphor in the
bible, it says (even more than before)
whatever the reader likes.

 

[oldbadger]

Nor will it. That's not science's job. Science only provides the answers. It does not implement them. ................ If you're unhappy with what's been done with that information, look to government and industry, not science.

I had to return and pick out those sentences, above, because later on I realised that they can add significantly to my interest as Science as a kind of Deity for some.

I had already built up some ideas around Science as a belief system (must get them all down on paper!) but your sentences above really do make a difference.

They (only!) suggest that Science of itself can do not wrong. Science of itself cannot be wrong. Science of itself is all knowledge regardless of whether discovered or not.

Science is therefore a kind of Godhead.
When the media presents results discovered by scientists many folks will credit these.
When adverts explain that products have been developed by scientists many folks will buy them.
Many folks want to be perceived as scientists if at all possible.

And, suddenly, I realise that Science is believed in just like many Christians perceive .... Genesis.
Science cannot be wrong, and is never responsible, is always pure....... Wow!

The idea is building............

 

[oldbadger]

Just one of many things you aint never heard of.

Of course.........

 

[oldbadger]

How great?

Big enough to seem like a worldwide flood to the witnesses.

In the Ice age (for example) the coastline of Britain was attached to Europe with great forests in between. I don't know how high sea levels rose after the ice-age but these rises must have been very shockingly high. That is how the whole of the UK got cut off, only several thousand years ago.

That must have messed up the weather systems somewhat, and torrential rains and floods must have been many.

Yeah........ I can believe in great flood stories, no problems about that.

 

[metis]

I don't know how high sea levels rose after the ice-age but these rises must have been very shockingly high.

If my memory on this is correct-- a dubious claim if there ever was one-- I think I remember that it was around 300 feet from it's lowest to its highest.

 

[Audie]

Big enough to seem like a worldwide flood to the witnesses.

In the Ice age (for example) the coastline of Britain was attached to Europe with great forests in between. I don't know how high sea levels rose after the ice-age but these rises must have been very shockingly high. That is how the whole of the UK got cut off, only several thousand years ago.

That must have messed up the weather systems somewhat, and torrential rains and floods must have been many.

Yeah........ I can believe in great flood stories, no problems about that.

A lot of continental shelf area went underwater as the continental glaciers melted, but it was a very very leisurely "flood".

I doubt it ever was as fast as an inch a year sea level rise.

 

[Audie]

.

And, suddenly, I realise that Science is believed in just like many Christians perceive .... Genesis.
Science cannot be wrong, and is never responsible, is always pure....... Wow!

The idea is building............

(In your head!)

 

[Subduction Zone]

Big enough to seem like a worldwide flood to the witnesses.

In the Ice age (for example) the coastline of Britain was attached to Europe with great forests in between. I don't know how high sea levels rose after the ice-age but these rises must have been very shockingly high. That is how the whole of the UK got cut off, only several thousand years ago.

That must have messed up the weather systems somewhat, and torrential rains and floods must have been many.

Yeah........ I can believe in great flood stories, no problems about that.

No, for most people sea level rise was rather slow. And it was close to being over 8,000 years ago.

https://www.fws.gov/slamm/Changes in Sea Level_expanded version_template.pdf

Meltwater Pulse IA was the fastest sea level rise post glaciation and even that was not rapid enough to cause a flood that would start such a myth. That was a rise of about 16 to 25 meters over a period of 400 to 500 years:

Meltwater pulse 1A - Wikipedia

"During meltwater pulse 1A, sea level is estimated to have risen at a rate of 40–60 mm (0.13–0.20 ft)/yr.[1] This rate of sea level rise was much larger than the rate of current sea level rise, which has been estimated to be in the region of 2–3 mm (0.0066–0.0098 ft)/yr."

Rather than speculating one should check to see if the evidence supports one's claims.