Putting the JW Stand on Evolution in Perspective

[tas8831]

No... I don’t believe I did. Every time I mentioned precursors in this thread, I used either the adjective “obvious” or “unambiguous.”

You are mistaken.

Yes, it seems that you have modified your mantra on this, looks like it was around May of this year that you started adding adjectives like 'clear', and then a month later, 'definite'. I didn't bother to read all the posts, but that shift was likely because you had been presented with what you had previously denied (the search feature comes in handy on forums like this)..

How exactly would you determine if these precursors were "obvious" or "evident" or not? Do you have a background in paleontology and invertebrate anatomy? It does not appear to be the case. Why should anyone accept your judgement on these issues?



Also, I note that you are very selective regarding what parts of posts you respond to.

There is something to be learned about creationists in which parts of the posts of other's they choose to respond to, and which parts they ignore.

 

[tas8831]

When I use quotes, I’ve provided the source. And I haven’t twisted the author’s meaning. I specifically asked those that think I have, to prove it: to show that the writer’s meaning regarding that particular topic was altered by my quote of their statement. No one has.

I disproved this on Tuesday wherein I mentioned this post:

Putting the JW Stand on Evolution in Perspective

So.. I am but the 6th person to have checked out this book from our library since 1966...

Page 102-103. There is the YEC quote - several paragraphs ellipsed out for effect.

On page 106:

"The richest fauna in so-called Precambrian rocks in one from South Australia having coelenterates resembling modern jellyfish and seapens, annelid worms, and other strange creatures. Quite similar fossils have been found on quartzites in western England, and recently on Axel Heiberg Island in Arctic Canada."

"The Australian fossils do lie below beds having an early Cambrian fauna..."​

Wow - PRECambrian fossils found in England, Austalia, and Canada. But golly, not enough not to be "puzzling"...

I think that is enough to prove my point. Your plagiarized quote is out of context, at best. Poor Hairbrain Yoyo (or whichever 'honest' creationist first came across this quote) did not bother to read a few pages more. Or they did and just know that their target audience won't bother to.



Yes - 4 pages later. See above. Stating that something is puzzling does not mean that something is false. Not that hard to figger' out.




It is amazing how much one can, you know, actually learn when one reads something other that YEC websites. Inspired by your out-of-context quote extravaganza, I googled this simple question:

'when were precambrian fossils discovered' and got a host of information - and not a YEC lie site in sight.


Now, even that 1965 book acknowledged some Precambrian fossils, so those authors' descriptions are fine for their time. But see, lots of things have happened since 1965, contrary to your silly assertion..

Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2008 Apr 27; 363(1496): 1425–1434.

The earliest fossil record of the animals and its significance

is a nice resource. Tons of references to actual research, not books published for public consumption.

Like this one (emphasis mine):

Journal of Paleontology 74(5):767-788. 2000

PHOSPHATIZED ANIMAL EMBRYOS FROM THE NEOPROTEROZOIC DOUSHANTUO FORMATION AT WENG'AN, GUIZHOU, SOUTH CHINA

[FYI - NEOPROTEROZOIC is Precambrian]


or this one:

Precambrian Sponges with Cellular Structures
Science 06 Feb 1998

"The fauna indicates that animals lived 40 to 50 million years before the Cambrian Explosion."



I believe that 1998 and 2000 are more recent than 1965. Yes?

It is funny that you also quoted Gould's "Panda's Thumb" (1980) - in 1990, he wrote "Wonderful Life", which was largely about the Precambrian.

Can't wait for more quotes of dubious relevance and context that we can expose!


Oh - and a reminder:

YOU WROTE:

Too much diversity exists, for evolution to reasonably explain and account for. No undirected, mindless force could greatly mutate these organisms, and still maintain the balance in nature that exists.


I asked you to imagine that I understand biology but know nothing of evolution and to EXPLAIN what you wrote to me. And you didn't.

But you just ignored it.​

Creationists do that a lot - ignore refutations of their claims. But people see it, you know.

Also, still waiting for you to demonstrate this claim of yours:

Too much diversity exists, for evolution to reasonably explain and account for. No undirected, mindless force could greatly mutate these organisms, and still maintain the balance in nature that exists.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, it seems that you have modified your mantra on this, looks like it was around May of this year that you started adding adjectives like 'clear', and then a month later, 'definite'. I didn't bother to read all the posts, but that shift was likely because you had been presented with what you had previously denied (the search feature comes in handy on forums like this)..

How exactly would you determine if these precursors were "obvious" or "evident" or not? Do you have a background in paleontology and invertebrate anatomy? It does not appear to be the case. Why should anyone accept your judgement on these issues?



Also, I note that you are very selective regarding what parts of posts you respond to.

There is something to be learned about creationists in which parts of the posts of other's they choose to respond to, and which parts they ignore.

Odds are even if the question was answered to his satisfaction he would merely move the goal.posts again.

The problem for creationists is that by moving the goalposts they are tacitly admitting to evolution after that event. In other words they are admitting that Man shares a common ancestor not only with other mammals, but all the way back.to fishes.

 

[ecco]

This is worth repeating...

I think that the unbeliever understands scripture better because he is able to consider it discompassionately and without the need to reconcile its apparent contradictions, moral errors, and errors in science and history. When the unbeliever reads the Genesis creation story, for example, he sees an ancient myth that, like all creation stories, is almost entirely incorrect. The believer will inject something not evident in the scripture to attempt to reconcile what appears to be an error, since he believes that the story comes from God and can't be wrong.

 

[ecco]

RE ...various failed predictions.

Just how many viable ones do you think there were?

Viable Predictions? What does that mean? Many people get paid to predict tomorrow's weather. Most get it right, sometimes it's wrong. Big Whoop.

But the big prediction, the prediction that pretty much defines JW, the prediction that Jesus is going to return and the world as we know it is going to end, that prediction, they got it wrong, repeatedly!

 

[metis]

But the big prediction, the prediction that pretty much defines JW, the prediction that Jesus is going to return and the world as we know it is going to end, that prediction, they got it wrong, repeatedly!

And instead of admitting it they fabricated excuses why it didn't happen.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

But the big prediction, the prediction that pretty much defines JW, the prediction that Jesus is going to return and the world as we know it is going to end, that prediction, they got it wrong, repeatedly!

That's what I'm asking....how many? "Repeatedly" means "several ".

 

[Subduction Zone]

That's what I'm asking....how many? "Repeatedly" means "several ".

It looks like about 6:

Watch Tower Society unfulfilled predictions - Wikipedia

After each failure the JW's made excuses and reinterpreted their predictions in an attempt to give themselves plausible deniability, only the Kool-Aid drinkers were taken in by that.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Sorry, I've been involved with other things....
I can only deal w/ one issue at a time, so I'll start with this:

[Regarding the Genesis creation story,....]the believer will inject something not evident in the scripture to attempt to reconcile what appears to be an error, since he believes that the story comes from God and can't be wrong.

As for the "days" being figurative, i.e., not literal, there are other Scriptures that make it evident! I've quoted them many times, in Hebrews 4. About Jehovah's "rest day"... tell me, does the Genesis account state that that 7th day ended? No. And the Apostle Paul avers that it was still continuing in his day!

It's always about context! The entire 66-book context, since it's really from one Author.

I'll take up your other points later.

So long.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

It looks like about 6:

Watch Tower Society unfulfilled predictions - Wikipedia

After each failure the JW's made excuses and reinterpreted their predictions in an attempt to give themselves plausible deniability, only the Kool-Aid drinkers were taken in by that.

From the article --

English researcher George D. Chryssides has argued that although there have been some "unrealized expectations", changes in Watch Tower chronology are attributable more to changed chronological schemes, rather than to failed predictions.[1]"

Besides, I asked for viable predictions of the end, distinct years posted definitely as "the end."

There's only one.

 

[Subduction Zone]

From the article --

English researcher George D. Chryssides has argued that although there have been some "unrealized expectations", changes in Watch Tower chronology are attributable more to changed chronological schemes, rather than to failed predictions.[1]"

Besides, I asked for viable predictions of the end, distinct years posted definitely as "the end."

There's only one.

Nope, there aren't any. Your religion failed 6 times. Talk about your slow learners.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Nope, there aren't any. Your religion failed 6 times. Talk about your slow learners.

My bad...I guess I should have said 'viable failed predictions of the end.' I thought that was understood.

Do you enjoy belittling others? "Slow learner"? A shame, you can't refrain from insults.

Again, there was only one date...but it proved to be a momentous one! Really, the beginning of the end, according to Jesus' prophecy at Matthew 24, paralleled at Mark 13 and Luke 21.

1914
Reply To: 1914 – what happened? – Heaven Net

 

[Subduction Zone]

My bad...I guess I should have said 'viable failed predictions of the end.' I thought that was understood.

Do you enjoy belittling others? "Slow learner"? A shame, you can't refrain from insults.

Again, there was only one date...but it proved to be a momentous one! Really, the beginning of the end, according to Jesus' prophecy at Matthew 24, paralleled at Mark 13 and Luke 21.

1914
Reply To: 1914 – what happened? – Heaven Net

Please, lame excuses only make your cult look even worse. But there inability to own up to their errors is one way that we know that it is a cult.

Let's be honest. I was not "belittling" anyone. Your cult has gone out of its way to earn criticism. If they admitted that they screwed up people would forgive them.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Your cult has gone out of its way to earn criticism. If they admitted that they screwed up people would forgive them.

Apparently, many do...we are growing faster, proportionately, than most other religions, in spite of disfellowshipping unrepentant ones.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Apparently, many do...we are growing faster, proportionately, than most other religions, in spite of disfellowshipping unrepentant ones.

And you are growing at a rate less than that of Pastafarians. Does that mean that worshiping the Flying Spaghetti Monster is more valid than worshiping your God?

Seriously try to think out your arguments. Small religions tend to change faster in numbers than large ones. That is the nature of religions, it really has nothing to do with their validity.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

And you are growing at a rate less than that of Pastafarians. Does that mean that worshiping the Flying Spaghetti Monster is more valid than worshiping your God?

Seriously try to think out your arguments. Small religions tend to change faster in numbers than large ones. That is the nature of religions, it really has nothing to do with their validity.

We are not exactly a "small" religion.

Although we number only about 8.5 million (that we're aware of -- numbers in lands where our work is banned like China, is hard to gather specific data), people the world over have talked with us! We publish the "Good News of The Kingdom" (Matthew 24:14) in 987 languages, including online versions. JW.org.

Our printing facilities are the largest religious ones in the Earth, fulfilling Jesus' command @ Matthew 28:19-20, and our magazines, the Watchtower and Awake!, have a circulation of over 69 million and about 57 million, respectively....each public issue!

That's more than any magazine, even RD!

Gotta love it...Jehovah's blessing our preaching!

 

[Subduction Zone]

We are not exactly a "small" religion.

Although we number only about 8.5 million (that we're aware of -- numbers in lands where our work is banned like China, is hard to gather specific data), people the world over have talked with us! We publish the "Good News of The Kingdom" (Matthew 24:14) in 987 languages, including online versions. JW.org.

Our printing facilities are the largest religious ones in the Earth, fulfilling Jesus' command @ Matthew 28:19-20, and our magazines, the Watchtower and Awake!, have a circulation of over 69 million and about 57 million, respectively....each public issue!

That's more than any magazine, even RD!

Gotta love it...Jehovah's blessing our preaching!

Or some people have a wry sense of humor. You do realize that your publication rate being so high is due to it being a small pamphlet that is distributed by poor misled members that only bother other people with the vast majority of those issues going directly to the circular file.

 

[Shad]

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

He also thought alchemy was a valid science. Alchemy and his views of the Bible are considered occult these days.

 

[Ryan5973]

The poll taken from by the PEW forum doesn't make any sense if 58% of Catholics believe in atheistic evolution which is against their official doctrine.

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Catholics and Evolution

Or, that they're not Bible believing Christians, but have replaced the Genesis account of creation with theistic evolution.

The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief (2006), p. 211

• As someone who's had the privilege of leading the human genome project, I've had the opportunity to study our own DNA instruction book at a level of detail that was never really possible before. It's also now been possible to compare our DNA with that of many other species. The evidence supporting the idea that all living things are descended from a common ancestor is truly overwhelming. I would not necessarily wish that to be so, as a Bible-believing Christian. But it is so. It does not serve faith well to try to deny that. Francis S. Collins M.D. Ph.D.

Whether it's a common designer or common ancestor, a common designer likewise supports the theory for similarities in DNA. Similar building blocks can be used to create a diversity of life forms. Evidence for a supreme being and the Genesis account sustain the faith of JWs.

 

[nPeace]

The poll taken from by the PEW forum doesn't make any sense if 58% of Catholics believe in atheistic evolution which is against their official doctrine.

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Catholics and Evolution

Or, that they're not Bible believing Christians, but have replaced the Genesis account of creation with theistic evolution.

The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief (2006), p. 211

• As someone who's had the privilege of leading the human genome project, I've had the opportunity to study our own DNA instruction book at a level of detail that was never really possible before. It's also now been possible to compare our DNA with that of many other species. The evidence supporting the idea that all living things are descended from a common ancestor is truly overwhelming. I would not necessarily wish that to be so, as a Bible-believing Christian. But it is so. It does not serve faith well to try to deny that. Francis S. Collins M.D. Ph.D.

Whether it's a common designer or common ancestor, a common designer likewise supports the theory for similarities in DNA. Similar building blocks can be used create a diversity of life forms. Evidence for a supreme being and the Genesis account sustain the faith of Jehovah's Wittiness.

Welcome aboard.