Putting the JW Stand on Evolution in Perspective

[Subduction Zone]

I meant direct evidence. Do you still want to know the difference?


Evidence the hypothesis is correct... based on the suppositions that it is correct. Like I said, it is evidence which some view as strong evidence.
Did I say something wrong? What did I say wrong?
How is it not an argument?


What is the issue? What is the point you are making, please?


No I meant scientists.


I guess the title was a warning to me, but the reason I posted it was for debate purposes. I am usually looking for someone who would give a response as to why it was wrong, rather than just saying sadly, that the person is lying.


I should have been more specific. I meant bacteria that infect animals and humans - for example, parasites.

Please note, there are no scientists that support creationism. To be a scientist one must use the scientific method. One has to be doing science.The various employees at ICR and AiG and other such sources have to swear not to go by the scientific method. Now they may be able to do science in other areas of science, but when it comes to the theory of evolution, that ability appears to abandon them.

You also seem to have a hard time understanding the testing of hypotheses and how that provides evidence for evolution. There are no only tests that can confirm the theory. There are also tests that if they occurred the theory would fail. The latter are extremely important too, in fact often more important than the tests that confirm. The theory of evolution has yet to fail any such tests. And creationists are still afraid to put their ideas into a testable format. Why do you think that is? Do you think that it might be because they know that creationism would fail such tests?

 

[nPeace]

Hard to say since creationists cannot even define it. You may say that it means that there was a higher power behind the formation of life and the only answer to that is that there is no evidence for that belief.

Creationists have tried to define "design" and they have always failed. But when one reads between the lines it is clear that they are merely trying to sneak God in. You should be asking yourself why would creationists have to rely on such a dishonest tactic if their beliefs were correct?

It seems to me you made a statement with no real basis. It seems to me, you are the one using dishonest tactics.
I referred to the definition for design here, and it is the same one some - I say some because I know some don't - Creationists use.
I also made it clear how it is applied by some Creationists.

 

[Deeje]

Despite the assertions of some, it is entirely possible to have both common sense and an academic degree. Or even two.

There you go taking a general comment personally again.....you must know that I never include you in general comments unless you fit yourself into them.

Meh...I know that where I live just got rated the happiest place in Australia, and I'm an atheist. I won't go further than that on judging others.

Judging by the comments of the 'usual' atheists here, I can see that they are a rather disgruntled bunch. Very condescending and prone to flash credentials or to question educational abilities of opponents to make a themselves sound intelligent as opposed to the uneducated morons they think they are speaking to.....like it makes a difference to their baseless arguments. An educated jerk is still a jerk...right?

Science can be dead wrong! There I've said it!

The system is broken I'm afraid, and science helped to break it. I have no admiration for all the harm that science has done in this world, often seen to be compensated for somehow by the little bit of good they keep pointing to. One does not offset the other IMO.

There are multiple reasons, I would say (not suggesting these are all valid);
1) Blood transfusion cases get press, especially where kids are involved.

This is an old argument LnM. Blood transfusions do not save lives. We are living proof of that. The medical profession itself is now sounding alarm bells over it. Bloodless medicine is now gaining ground all over the world, as the dangers of blood transfusions become obvious. Are the words "morbidity" and "mortality" something that should be heard in connection with a supposedly "life-saving" procedure? Yet this is what the experts say.

For Media | National Blood Authority

2) You guys knock on people's doors.

We also ring doorbells We were told to take Christ's message to the people for their evaluation....it is offered but not forced.
If I was wearing an orange uniform and came to warn you of an impending disaster, would you complain that I knocked on your door or rang your doorbell?

3) You're 'the other Christians'. That means both Christians (or so-called Christians, or whatever you might say) and the godless heathens differ from you.

Just like Jesus was the "other Jew"? I imagine the godless of the day might have disagreed with him too, but then atheism was not common in those days.

But if it makes you feel better, most groups seem to think they are unfairly focused on from time to time. Lucky I don't belong to a group!

I know.....sometimes the unfair focus is deserved and sometimes it's not, driven by prejudice and hate.

I do belong to a group who cops a lot of flack....but I used to belong to a group who dished it out to JW's as well....until I actually listened to them one day, instead of to their detractors. Only when I acquainted myself with the people themselves and got to understand why they were so 'different' did I embrace everything about them. I then understood what Jesus was on about when he said to expect it to be a difficult path. (Matthew 7:13-14)

I respect your comments always LnM. You don't appear to have a nasty bone in your body. To disagree agreeably takes two of like disposition I think.

 

[nPeace]

Please note, there are no scientists that support creationism. To be a scientist one must use the scientific method. One has to be doing science.The various employees at ICR and AiG and other such sources have to swear not to go by the scientific method. Now they may be able to do science in other areas of science, but when it comes to the theory of evolution, that ability appears to abandon them.

You also seem to have a hard time understanding the testing of hypotheses and how that provides evidence for evolution. There are no only tests that can confirm the theory. There are also tests that if they occurred the theory would fail. The latter are extremely important too, in fact often more important than the tests that confirm. The theory of evolution has yet to fail any such tests. And creationists are still afraid to put their ideas into a testable format. Why do you think that is? Do you think that it might be because they know that creationism would fail such tests?

I already gave you an answer to this. Read it here, if this is better for you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It seems to me you made a statement with no real basis. It seems to me, you are the one using dishonest tactics.
I referred to the definition for design here, and it is the same one some - I say some because I know some don't - Creationists use.
I also made it clear how it is applied by some Creationists.

Then at best you are ignorant. Let's forget your rather bogus word salad definition of "design". That definition was so vague as to be worthless and only confirms my claims. Tell us how you would define design in regards to life? It fails if it is circular in nature.

Here is a reasonable test that your definition must be able to pass. How would you tell if an observed trait or condition was "designed" or if it arose naturally?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I already gave you an answer to this. Read it here, if this is better for you.

Then you are claiming that what creationists do is not science. That is if you understood your link.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

There you go taking a general comment personally again.....you must know that I never include you in general comments unless you fit yourself into them.

I know. Just that sometimes I feel like I need to represent the 'not so vocal majority'. At least, I think we're the majority! Internet forums are not representative of general populations.

Judging by the comments of the 'usual' atheists here, I can see that they are a rather disgruntled bunch. Very condescending and prone to flash credentials or to question educational abilities of opponents to make a themselves sound intelligent as opposed to the uneducated morons they think they are speaking to.....like it makes a difference to their baseless arguments. An educated jerk is still a jerk...right?

An educated jerk is indeed still a jerk. The education system doesn't do anything for the general personality of a person, in general. Individual teachers might occasionally.

Science can be dead wrong! There I've said it!

For what it's worth, science doesn't disagree...!

This is an old argument LnM. Blood transfusions do not save lives. We are living proof of that. The medical profession itself is now sounding alarm bells over it. Bloodless medicine is now gaining ground all over the world, as the dangers of blood transfusions become obvious. Are the words "morbidity" and "mortality" something that should be heard in connection with a supposedly "life-saving" procedure? Yet this is what the experts say.

For Media | National Blood Authority

We also ring doorbells We were told to take Christ's message to the people for their evaluation....it is offered but not forced.
If I was wearing an orange uniform and came to warn you of an impending disaster, would you complain that I knocked on your door or rang your doorbell?

Just like Jesus was the "other Jew"? I imagine the godless of the day might have disagreed with him too, but then atheism was not common in those days.

Just to clarify, these weren't my arguments, and I don't have any particular issues with the JWs. But they were my best guess at the answer to your question. These are things I think increase the scrutiny on a group which is pacifist and law-abiding.

I respect your comments always LnM. You don't appear to have a nasty bone in your body. To disagree agreeably takes two of like disposition I think.

We're proof that civil disagreement is possible!!

 

[Jose Fly]

https://www.jw.org/en/publications/books/teen-questions/should-i-believe-in-evolution/

Should I Believe in Evolution?
WHY IT MATTERS

If evolution is true, life has no lasting purpose. If creation is true, we can find satisfying answers to questions about life and the future.

Despite decades of research, scientists have yet to come up with an explanation for evolution that they can all agree on. If scientists can’t agree on evolution—and they are supposed to be the experts—are you wrong to question the theory?

“If life came about by accident, then our lives—and all the things in our universe—are meaningless,”​

Given the above, I seriously doubt that 8% of practicing JWs believe in Evolution.

Given the above, it's clear why Deeje must defend her position at all costs.

To repeat from the Jehovah's Witnesses...

"If evolution is true, life has no lasting purpose"

Every one of us should never, ever, ever forget this whenever they interact with a Jehovah's Witness. Everything they say on the subject is a direct extension of that sentiment. All the back and forths over fossils, genetics, and other scientific matters? Completely meaningless to them.

All that will ever matter to Jehovah's Witnesses is "evolution = life has no purpose".

Don't ever forget it.

 

[Jose Fly]

Please note, there are no scientists that support creationism.

Actually there are. I've worked with one. It's just that evolution/creationism wasn't a factor in our work.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Actually there are. I've worked with one. It's just that evolution/creationism wasn't a factor in our work.

If you notice I clarified this a bit. There are creationists that can do real science. But when it comes to their creationists beliefs they cannot seem to apply the scientific method. That means in regards to creationism at least they are not scientists.

 

[Jose Fly]

If you notice I clarified this a bit. There are creationists that can do real science.

Or more accurately, there are creationists who do real science.

But when it comes to their creationists beliefs they cannot seem to apply the scientific method. That means in regards to creationism at least they are not scientists.

Yup, which stands to reason since creationism is a religious belief rather than science.

 

[Deeje]

I'm an engineer (recovering), so I'm a big fan of educated guessing.

If someone found the body of Colonel Mustard in the library with machine parts shoved down his throat, and you were the last person to see him alive....would the police suspect you to be the murderer? After all, you had had words with Col. Mustard just the day before, sending him a very threatening email and now the police are knocking on your door (Oh, if only it was Jehovah's Witnesses!) You are arrested on suspicion of murder and you know that you are not guilty (as if a nice fellow like you could do such a thing) But circumstantial evidence looks damning. What do you do to prove your innocence? The educated guesses of the detectives are making you look guiltier by the minute!

Don't you wish that the real murderer would show up and confess so that you could go home to a nice tasty haggis for dinner with the missus?

Well, that is what we hope will happen with evolution......the real Creator will show up and confess to designing the whole thing, putting this baby to bed once and for all. The Bible says he will.
The scientists will look really stupid and will be forced to stop whining about no evidence for an Intelligent Designer....and we believers can all get on with the life we were supposed to live in the first place....rewarded for our patience and long suffering. It sounds like a pretty good deal to me.

What is evolution offering?

But macro is testable, albeit perhaps not to the level desired by some.

If someone is going to kill God, they better have more conclusive evidence than what has been presented so far. It appears to me that humans are easy to talk into anything if you keep repeating something and acting like you can prove what you say, when you really can't. Suggestions and educated guesses are then mistaken for facts.
.
Micro is testable.....macro is not. It is backed up by conveniently inconclusive evidence that requires just the right interpretation to imply that it can all happen outside of what can be proven. I don't buy it. Others can if they wish....

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Or more accurately, there are creationists who do real science.


Yup, which stands to reason since creationism is a religious belief rather than science.

If a theist is a methodological naturalist, then there's no issue with their religious belief, basically.

 

[Salvador]

A

There is no proof that these people ever existed as ancestors of modern man. They are a figment of science's imagination. Humans have always been human...apes have always been apes. They still are.

Even in today's world there are primitive people still in existence.

There's plenty of evidence humans share common ancestry with other great apes.

Evidence of common descent - Wikipedia

ERVs provide the closest thing to a mathematical proof for evolution.. ERVs are the relics of ancient viral infections preserved in our DNA. The odd thing is many ERVs are located in exactly the same position on our genome and the chimpanzee genome! There are two explanations for the perfectly matched ERV locations. Either it is an unbelievable coincidence that viruses just by chance were inserted in exactly the same location in our genomes, or humans and chimps share a common ancestor. The chances that a virus was inserted at the exact same location is 1 in 3,000,000,000. Humans and chimps share 7 instances of viruses inserted at perfectly matched location. It was our common ancestor that was infected, and we both inherited the ERVs.

Johnson, Welkin E.; Coffin, John M. (1999-08-31). "Constructing primate phylogenies from ancient retrovirus sequences". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 96(18): 10254–10260. Bibcode:1999PNAS...9610254J. doi:10.1073/pnas.96.18.10254. ISSN 0027-8424. PMC 17875. PMID 10468595.

 

[Salvador]

Thanks.

This can all look and sound compelling, but it doesn't verify anything.
It's like looking at circumstantial evidence, and reaching a conclusion without having solid evidence.
That has and still continues to lead to wrong judgments.

What may look convincing, is not necessarily true.
The most that can be said, if one is honest, is that the evidence for the hypothesis can be a strong argument for those who present it - which can be said for many arguments... but it isn't "a done deal". It's not fact - although evolutionist want it to be.
Would you agree?

For example,
For decades, scientists assumed that the relatively small pelvic bones found in whales were simple remnants of their land-dwelling past, “useless vestiges” that served no real purpose, akin to the human appendix or tailbone.

A new study, co-authored by Erik Otárola-Castillo, a fellow in David Pilbeam’s paleoanthropology lab in the Department of Human Evolutionary Biology, suggests that the bones, in fact, have a very specific purpose — particularly when it comes to making baby whales and baby dolphins.

I'm not a scientist, but they are scientists that do not agree with these assumptions.
New Research Debunks Human Chromosome Fusion
Chromosome Fusion? It’s Getting Harder and Harder to Believe.
Robertsonian translocation (ROB) is the most common form of chromosomal rearrangement in humans where the participating chromosomes break at their centromeres and the long arms fuse to form a single, large chromosome with a single centromere.

It would not be a first that they are wrong.
We cannot just take what "looks to be", and declare that it is.
Otherwise, you would have to admit that the arguments presented by ID Creationist, have been wrongly called pseudoscience.
Would you agree? How do you test and observe it? You can't.

I have a question though.
How do bacteria survive without a host?


This too would be considered pseudoscience, wouldn't it?

There's plenty of evidence humans share common ancestry with other great apes.

Evidence of common descent - Wikipedia

ERVs provide the closest thing to a mathematical proof for evolution.. ERVs are the relics of ancient viral infections preserved in our DNA. The odd thing is many ERVs are located in exactly the same position on our genome and the chimpanzee genome! There are two explanations for the perfectly matched ERV locations. Either it is an unbelievable coincidence that viruses just by chance were inserted in exactly the same location in our genomes, or humans and chimps share a common ancestor. The chances that a virus was inserted at the exact same location is 1 in 3,000,000,000. Humans and chimps share 7 instances of viruses inserted at perfectly matched location. It was our common ancestor that was infected, and we both inherited the ERVs.

Johnson, Welkin E.; Coffin, John M. (1999-08-31). "Constructing primate phylogenies from ancient retrovirus sequences". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 96(18): 10254–10260. Bibcode:1999PNAS...9610254J. doi:10.1073/pnas.96.18.10254. ISSN 0027-8424. PMC 17875. PMID 10468595.

 

[Salvador]

Thanks.

This can all look and sound compelling, but it doesn't verify anything.
It's like looking at circumstantial evidence, and reaching a conclusion without having solid evidence.
That has and still continues to lead to wrong judgments.

What may look convincing, is not necessarily true.
The most that can be said, if one is honest, is that the evidence for the hypothesis can be a strong argument for those who present it - which can be said for many arguments... but it isn't "a done deal". It's not fact - although evolutionist want it to be.
Would you agree?

For example,
For decades, scientists assumed that the relatively small pelvic bones found in whales were simple remnants of their land-dwelling past, “useless vestiges” that served no real purpose, akin to the human appendix or tailbone.

A new study, co-authored by Erik Otárola-Castillo, a fellow in David Pilbeam’s paleoanthropology lab in the Department of Human Evolutionary Biology, suggests that the bones, in fact, have a very specific purpose — particularly when it comes to making baby whales and baby dolphins.

I'm not a scientist, but they are scientists that do not agree with these assumptions.
New Research Debunks Human Chromosome Fusion
Chromosome Fusion? It’s Getting Harder and Harder to Believe.
Robertsonian translocation (ROB) is the most common form of chromosomal rearrangement in humans where the participating chromosomes break at their centromeres and the long arms fuse to form a single, large chromosome with a single centromere.

It would not be a first that they are wrong.
We cannot just take what "looks to be", and declare that it is.
Otherwise, you would have to admit that the arguments presented by ID Creationist, have been wrongly called pseudoscience.
Would you agree? How do you test and observe it? You can't.

I have a question though.
How do bacteria survive without a host?


This too would be considered pseudoscience, wouldn't it?

Jeffrey Tomkins is a "research associate" at the Institute for Creation Research.

His research for the ICR tends to be genetics related, and concentrated in 2011 on the genetic similarity between humans and chimpanzees. He made much of his research's apparent discovery that the similarity between humans and chimps was 'merely' 86-89%. In 2012 his ICR News article on the sequencing of the Gorilla genome, Gorilla Genome Is Bad News for Evolution, was attacked on Pharyngula as failing to understand the science

Gorilla Genome Is Bad News for Evolution

Debunking Creationist study criticizing similiarity between human and chimpanzee DNA | Genetic Literacy Project

 

[ecco]

Blood transfusions do not save lives.

Your own link says otherwise...

Blood, still saving lives ... but there are risks. Highlights the benefits and risks of red blood cell transfusions.

Why would you post a link that counters your argument? Did you not bother to read what it said?​

If I was wearing an orange uniform and came to warn you of an impending disaster, would you complain that I knocked on your door or rang your doorbell?

What impending disaster? The one that's been predicted for 2000 years? Still waiting?

Perhaps you are referring to the impending disaster that I, an atheist, face upon death. Well, if we take the views of most people in the world, we must come to the conclusion that since JW is a false religion, that you will not make it into heaven either.

 

[ecco]

Well, I have a relative who is a Fundie Creationist and is also a real honest to gosh Rocket Scientist.

 

[Revoltingest]

I
What is evolution offering?

A practical example is insect control.
My brief apprenticeship (a few minutes) at the knee
of my exterminator revealed how to apply chemicals
so as to avoid their evolving resistance.

If someone is going to kill God....

That's not my goal.
Moreover, evolution (micro or macro) & even abiogenesis wouldn't
disprove the existence of gods. Those processes could be the
means by which our universe was designed to sprout life.
The gods are all safe

Micro is testable.....macro is not.

While I disagree about macro, the field is expanding.
Interesting developments await us....money back
guarantee on that.

It is backed up by conveniently inconclusive evidence....

Seems really inconvenient to me.

 

[ecco]

If someone found the body of Colonel Mustard in the library with machine parts shoved down his throat, and you were the last person to see him alive....would the police suspect you to be the murderer? After all, you had had words with Col. Mustard just the day before, sending him a very threatening email and now the police are knocking on your door (Oh, if only it was Jehovah's Witnesses!) You are arrested on suspicion of murder and you know that you are not guilty (as if a nice fellow like you could do such a thing) But circumstantial evidence looks damning. What do you do to prove your innocence? The educated guesses of the detectives are making you look guiltier by the minute!

From the above, it's clear that your JW oversimplification mindset is fully functional.

First off, you assumed I was the last person to see him alive, but presented no evidence to substantiate that.

Aside from a "very threatening email", what evidence do you have that I "had words with Col. Mustard"? You presented none.

Where did I get machine parts? You did not bother asking.

Good police don't use educated guesses, they rely on evidence. Just as scientists rely on evidence.

You also ignore that I don't have to prove my innocence. At least not in this Country. It is up to the State to prove my guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The more you talk about evidence the more it becomes clear that you have no understanding of what constitutes evidence.

Come clean. Admit your beliefs are based solely on: