Putting the JW Stand on Evolution in Perspective

[oldbadger]

You're reading into my words and injecting a message of your own invention into them, not the one I offered. What I wrote is that science is not responsible for the ways that government and industry apply it, not that science is all knowledge, and certainly not anything supernatural or religious.

I think that Science is about knowledge, some known, some not discovered.
I think that Science can be supernatural, as in nature beyond human perception or understanding.

Science deserves our respect and our gratitude. There is nothing else like it. I mentioned the recent explosive revolution in forensic science to you in an earlier post, one which has made police investigations and courtroom trials much more likely to identify the guilty and exonerate the innocent,...........................

Did you actually work in forensic examination iof evidence? I forget how you came in to contact with it. What were the forensic disciplines that you worked in or witnessed?

Where mankind gets involved in procedures, they need to be checked and re-checked.

Forensic science is great if it's used properly, but sadly as previously described it is sometimes abused. Sometimes, like other evidence, it is concealed.

Evidence that could have acquitted hundreds of defendants charged with rape was witheld by the Met Police in Greater London about three years ago. After one trial fell apart (thanks to a very dedicated defence team, I expect) this knowledge flooded on to the media before it could be smothered.

That progress deserves a standing ovation. Once again, science has improved the human condition and made life better. Acknowledging that is hardly turning science into more than it is or deifying it as you have suggested.

Knowledge doesn't need standing ovations, just the folks who discovered it.

These Standing Ovations to 'Science' do look a bit like a kind of worship, I'm afraid.

Personally, I think that global flood myths are the result of finding marine fossils at high altitudes in mountains that were formally sea floors. It was certainly easier to envision the water rising to the level of the highest mountain tops than to picture the mountain rising that far out of the sea. And of course, routine floods, which aren't miles deep, wouldn't account for that finding anyway.

I don't think that the authors of Genesis knew about marine fossils on mountain tops.

Also, when we explain the Bible in terms of the limitations and shortcomings of the people of the past and their misinterpretations of observed phenomena, we're basically taking the magic and divinity out of it and rendering it an ordinary human endeavor of historical value only, not a divine guide to living and learning.

Phenomena........ observed phenomena.
Several years ago on a mainly agnostic/atheist forum I opened a thread which asked 'Do you have any superstitions about anything?' I was surprised to read replies from members that showed that humans are generally superstitious. There does seem to be a kind of magic in the world for almost everybody.

You and I don't have to follow other people's faiths. For instance, I wouldn't follow your faith as described in forensic sciences in the same way as you might. But then I worked for defence solicitors on occasions and understand how impetus (and down right dishonesty) can influence some (just some) investigations.

This thread was opened as a discussion, but whether that was intention or not is in doubt, I think. Some extreme atheists (I'm not thinking of you) rushed to make it a very aggressive debate, and since the JW's academic achievements in one country were stuffed up on to the page, and believing that the OP is/was a tradesman, I just couldn't help bunging a few questions the OP's way, questions that he did not reply to.

That's how I got here, a Deist who acknowledges JW beliefs but who cannot follow them, is all. One day I must revisit the subject of superstitions and open a thread about it here......... most humans are superstitious, even the ones who are extremely anti-religion, it seems...

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

My idea of metaphor is the application of a description that is not literal, but I don't feel that the writer has to know exactly what the literal explanation is...... do you feel that the writer should know?

I feel that a writer or speaker using a metaphor will know what it stands for. It's analogous to calling a word a synonym. A synonym of what? Hopefully, the one calling a word a synonym knows what other word he is referring to.

I live in a country which on-the-whole is much less heated about religion and creation stories, probably because religion here is so small

You are fortunate for that. I no longer live in the US, where religion has a pervasive, and in my opinion, pernicious affect on daily life. I've lived in Mexico most of the last decade, where religion is even m re pervasive in the lives of the faithful, but affects mine less than it did in the States, where it successfully labored to influence politics.

I'm a Deist, and I don't think many of us get too agitated about our belief, about Theism being wrong.

I have mostly had good experiences with deists, most of whom identify more with rationalists than religious enthusiasts such as interventionalist theists - those who tell us about an active god regulating our world, writing scripture, reviewing and judging our thoughts, considering our prayers, etc..

many church communions on Sundays around here might have congregations of five or less people.

How do they stay open?

We just don't feel too threatened by Christianity any more.

Excellent. That's where many Americans would like to be.

I cannot cross swords over the issue of my perception of Genesis being a (kind of) metaphor against your perception of Genesis being a 'wrong description'... have I got that about right?

I'd say that I can't consider Genesis a metaphor without knowing what its writer(s) were referring to with their metaphor. Lacking that, it's more appropriately called a story once taken at face value, but now shown to be incorrect.

Did you actually work in forensic examination iof evidence? I forget how you came in to contact with it.

No. I learned about it on television, mostly from a series called Forensic Files reviewing actual cases.

What were the forensic disciplines that you worked in or witnessed?

These shows discussed forensic pathology, facial recreation, facial superposition, hair and fiber analysis, nuclear and mitochondrial DNA, voice-print analysis, document analysis, handwriting analysis, footprint and tire tread analysis, bullet land and groove analysis, firing pin analysis, soil analysis, bite mark analysis, pollen and diatom analysis, blood spatter analysis, paint chip analysis, luminol screening for blood residue, and more.

These Standing Ovations to 'Science' do look a bit like a kind of worship, I'm afraid.

Not to me. They look like gratitude and congratulations. I find worship unbefitting a free, autonomous citizen.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Do you not read my post accurately? I said her statement was one reason, not the only reason, which started such widespread denigration.

You took one sentence in one video spoken by one person once and used it as a brush with which to make sweeping generalizations about a huge group of people with lots of varied opinions, beliefs and perspectives. You were attempting to simplify and denigrate atheists just because of your interpretation of a single sentence said by a person in the heat of the moment rather than the much more substantial examples in the numerous essays, debates and discussions in any of Aron Ra's other videos.

Are you able to debate this subject intelligently? If so, then you should understand why your post was asinine and reductive and indicates an unwillingness or an incapacity to debate the subject in good faith.

 

[ecco]

.but that is just me....a refugee from Christendom who found a solid house to live in...not built on sand, but built on the rock that is not Peter, but Jesus Christ. The storm is coming, so let's see whose house is still standing at the end...?

The firm rock that your religion is founded on is "The storm is coming, ". The problem is that people have been saying the storm is coming long before JW. JW has repeated this claim multiple times in its short existence. It amazes me that people will continue to believe in something that has been repeatedly promised - but has not occurred.

 

[Audie]

Defeatist?

No, but a few little feel-good life style
changes are of no value at all.

Esp if they make one feel he has
"done his bit'.

 

[Audie]

You took one sentence in one video spoken by one person once and used it as a brush with which to make sweeping generalizations about a huge group of people with lots of varied opinions, beliefs and perspectives. You were attempting to simplify and denigrate atheists just because of your interpretation of a single sentence said by a person
aith.

Obvious enough that there are those who
already thinks (knows) that
THEIR church puts them in the select
group of the righteous and the holy.

And what reason could anyone have, for
not wanting to join the cult?

Could it be anything other than that
they prefer Satan's jewel crown?

One person admitting it (or seeming to
if you squint just right) is more than
enough to speak for all the sin-
lovers.

 

[ecco]

Back to the Flood: interesting article about the power of a recent flood in Texas.....

Canyon carved in just three days in Texas flood: Insight into ancient flood events on Earth and Mars

What's your point in posting this link? How does it support your viewpoint?

 

[Audie]

I feel that a writer or speaker using a metaphor will know what it stands for. It's analogous to calling a word a synonym. A synonym of what? Hopefully, the one calling a word a synonym knows what other word he is referring to.

The thing about this "metaphor" is that it
is, who is to say what the "metaphor"
is about?

Such a useful conceit!

It provides a wide open invitation for everyone
to infallibly interpret the bible to mean whatever
they like.

It relieves the bible of all charges
of falsehood.

The "believers" do need some way to deal
with the way science more and more shows
a literal reading generally wont do.l

Some choose the ignoble route of denial
and more falsehoods, but generally, Christians
are sensible people.

 

[ecco]

Yeah, probably.

So did Jim and Tammy Baker. (And many others.)

Do you think Jesus agrees with that? Or agrees with just anyone who claims to be his follower? Matthew 7:23

I don't believe Jesus ever existed, so it's a moot question.

 

[ecco]

I do know that there have been global floods before, several of them, not always of water but floods just the same.

How do you know? What evidence do you have that you can present?

 

[ecco]

I think that Science can be supernatural, as in nature beyond human perception or understanding.

You should know that "beyond human perception or understanding" and "supernatural" are two different things.

Years ago the nature of the atom was "beyond human perception or understanding". There is nothing "supernatural" about the atom.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The thing about this "metaphor" is that it
is, who is to say what the "metaphor"
is about?

Such a useful conceit!

It provides a wide open invitation for everyone
to infallibly interpret the bible to mean whatever
they like.

It relieves the bible of all charges
of falsehood.

The "believers" do need some way to deal
with the way science more and more shows
a literal reading generally wont do.l

Some choose the ignoble route of denial
and more falsehoods, but generally, Christians
are sensible people.

I think that we're in agreement here. What I am questioning is the validity of calling a story that has been shown to be a myth rather than history something other than a wrong guess. Calling it a metaphor or allegory implies that the author knew that the story was not literal truth, something not evident and something unlikely. The effort is always to restore scripture by putting some kind of makeup on its blemishes. Thus, a day is no longer a day now that science has shown that our world took more than six days to fashion.

 

[ecco]

Phenomena........ observed phenomena.
Several years ago on a mainly agnostic/atheist forum I opened a thread which asked 'Do you have any superstitions about anything?' I was surprised to read replies from members that showed that humans are generally superstitious. There does seem to be a kind of magic in the world for almost everybody.

You stated it was "a mainly agnostic/atheist forum". Then you stated that you "read replies from members that showed that humans are generally superstitious". That made it sound like people who are "mainly agnostic/atheist" are also superstitious. Either your recollection is flawed or you are intentionally trying to distort facts.

I seriously doubt that people who are mainly agnostic/atheist are superstitious.

I am not. Ask around this forum and see what you come up with.

 

[ecco]

many church communions on Sundays around here might have congregations of five or less people. OK,

How do they stay open?

Probably they are living on the death inheritances from former members and are waiting to collect on the five remaining.

Churches are very good at guilting old folks to leave their remaining money and properties to GOD.

 

[Jose Fly]

You know what? You keep on with this

Yeah, I'm sure that like most of our other interactions, you'd prefer this one just go away. The optics of you cherry-picking your own sources isn't all that good for you.

in it just bolsters what they’ve posted about the pre-Cambrian fossils...that, when they post on a topic, they try to post what they view as truth. Or do you think they’re lying?

They do what encyclopedias do.....give layperson-oriented broad explanations that are usually a few years behind. For example, in the section on the Cambrian, none of their sources are from the last 15 years.

Like I said, if you're truly interested in the subject, you'll make the effort to learn about it. If not.....well, you'll stay right where you are now.

 

[Audie]

I do know that there have been global floods before, several of them, not always of water but floods just the same.

Really. Care to share this info?

 

[Audie]

I think that we're in agreement here. What I am questioning is the validity of calling a story that has been shown to be a myth rather than history something other than a wrong guess. Calling it a metaphor or allegory implies that the author knew that the story was not literal truth, something not evident and something unlikely. The effort is always to restore scripture by putting some kind of makeup on its blemishes. Thus, a day is no longer a day now that science has shown that our world took more than six days to fashion.

Deliberately writing a false story and in
no way making it clear that it was some
sort of metagory would be real irresponsible.

Here you get generation after generation
(and still today)of people who are in effect
accusing "god" of the most hideous sort
of psycho monster behaviour, ie, killing
everyone and everything in a flood.

Teaching little children they are to worship
and fear this monster.

Whether "god" inspired the tale, or, people
just made it up, either way there is a huge
failure to communicate anything very
righteous and holy.

 

[Audie]

Right on, @oldbadger!


Back to the Flood: interesting article about the power of a recent flood in Texas.....

Canyon carved in just three days in Texas flood: Insight into ancient flood events on Earth and Mars

Of course, the naieve do not distinguish between
the rate of erosion is unconsolidated sediments
or soft rock, and any other sort of strata.

But hey creationists do not tend to be geologists.
When they are it leads them deep into the
quagmire of intellectual dishonesty. Or escape from
their cult.

Did you find an article that explains how we could
have a half million years' worth of ice in antarctica,
if there had been a flood?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Deliberately writing a false story and in
no way making it clear that it was some
sort of metagory would be real irresponsible.

Here you get generation after generation
(and still today)of people who are in effect
accusing "god" of the most hideous sort
of psycho monster behaviour, ie, killing
everyone and everything in a flood.

Teaching little children they are to worship
and fear this monster.

Whether "god" inspired the tale, or, people
just made it up, either way there is a huge
failure to communicate anything very
righteous and holy.

The only failure here, is on your part -- and other skeptics -- to honestly try to understand it.

Newton did...he 'studied it daily', and thought it was the greatest book ever written. (It's lessons & narratives haven't changed.)

Really, how would any skeptics ever hope to accurately understand it's lessons, in light of Matthew 11:25-26 & Hebrews 4:12?

 

[Audie]

The only failure here, is on your part -- and other skeptics -- to honestly try to understand it.

Newton did...he 'studied it daily', and thought it was the greatest book ever written. (It's lessons & narratives haven't changed.


Really, how would any skeptics ever hope to accurately understand it's lessons, in light of Matthew 11:25-26 & Hebrews 4:12?

There is massive failure on the part
of anyone who could believe there really
was a world wide flood.