The rEvolving Doorway

[Earthling]

Well of course Jehovah's Witnesses have anti-evolution literature. Given how severely they punish anyone who deviates from their anti-evolution doctrine, such ridiculous literature is to be expected.

Why is it ridiculous, it only correctly informs the reader how evolution is always evolving because it's WRONG!

 

[Astrophile]

It's fundamentally flawed because it assumes that the laws of the physics are set, so the same result should be achieved when you perform the same experiments. The problem is, God is not bound by their perceived laws. God is sovereign over His creation so the scientific community is subject to His laws which He can change at any given moment.

If next Friday's lunar eclipse doesn't occur on time, as astronomers have predicted, I will believe you and your God. If the eclipse does occur as predicted, I will continue to accept the findings of science.

 

[Jose Fly]

Why is it ridiculous, it only correctly informs the reader how evolution is always evolving because it's WRONG!

As I noted in my other post, I fail to understand why anyone would think scientists adjusting their models and conclusions in response to new information is a bad thing. Would you prefer scientists dogmatically stick to their initial hypotheses no matter what?

 

[shunyadragon]

Why is it ridiculous, it only correctly informs the reader how evolution is always evolving because it's WRONG!

The source is bogus. and evolving knowledge does not make anything wrong. In fact as science goes if the knowledge of science does not evolve and change it is WRONG!

 

[Earthling]

@RothschildSaxeCoburgGotha do you have a date for this article?

It says 1971 in the Kingdom Library, but in the online search it comes up 1950. Maybe those aren't dates but some other number. The code from the library is W50 11/1, which comes up here on the online search. I don't understand their system sometimes so pay it little attention.

 

[Earthling]

As I noted in my other post, I fail to understand why anyone would think scientists adjusting their models and conclusions in response to new information is a bad thing. Would you prefer scientists dogmatically stick to their initial hypotheses no matter what?

I've explained this several times, it isn't a bad thing unless you promote the current data as fact. It isn't fact, it's estimation, speculation, conjecture, guesswork, surmise, fancy, presumption, assumption, theory, postulation, supposition.

Atheists tend to try and present it both ways.

 

[Jose Fly]

I've explained this several times, it isn't a bad thing unless you promote the current data as fact.

And do you have any examples of scientists doing that?

It isn't fact, it's estimation, speculation, conjecture, guesswork, surmise, fancy, presumption, assumption, theory, postulation, supposition.

I'm always amazed at fundamentalist-style black/white thinking when I see it. I just don't understand how folks can live that way.

Atheists tend to try and present it both ways.

Where? Be specific.

 

[nPeace]

It says 1971 in the Kingdom Library, but in the online search it comes up 1950. Maybe those aren't dates but some other number. The code from the library is W50 11/1, which comes up here on the online search. I don't understand their system sometimes so pay it little attention.

1950. Man that's old.
But you were only demonstrating the changes over the years, so that's cool.

It's good that we can still hold on to our library of old publications, because when searching the net, it's hard to find old quotes.
For example, I was looking for the definition of evolution, which once contained the phrase "from one common ancestor", but it's completely gone - replaced.

Still it doesn't take away from the fact that an evolutionist can't get away from the fact that they must believe that life evolved from one common ancestor, no matter how they try to evade it.

 

[Jose Fly]

Still it doesn't take away from the fact that an evolutionist can't get away from the fact that they must believe that life evolved from one common ancestor, no matter how they try to evade it.

What's the significant difference between evolving from one common ancestor and evolving from a common ancestral population?

 

[nPeace]

What's the significant difference between evolving from one common ancestor and evolving from a common ancestral population?

You are saying they changed that too? You tell me. This you can educate me in.

 

[shunyadragon]

You are saying they changed that too? You tell me. This you can educate me in.

The difference is as the science of genetics advanced the knowledge of the evolution of a population became the dominant concept based on the evidence.

Actually it never was proposed that evolution was from 'one' (person?) common ancestor, except for the hypothetical view, not necessarily conclusive today that all life evolved from 'one' ancestor. Before the advancement of genetics many of the mechanisms of evolution were not known.

Today the concept of evolving from a population remains the dominant view even from abiogenesis when the earliest life forms evolved from possibly populations of pre-life forms.

 

[shunyadragon]

I've explained this several times, it isn't a bad thing unless you promote the current data as fact. It isn't fact, it's estimation, speculation, conjecture, guesswork, surmise, fancy, presumption, assumption, theory, postulation, supposition.

Atheists tend to try and present it both ways.

No you have not explained it, you have asserted a false argument ignorant as to how ALL science works.

Actually not true. The proper use is to describe all of science as 'factual' (adjective), based on objective observable facts, which accumulate over time and ALL fields of science changes.

 

[Jose Fly]

You are saying they changed that too? You tell me. This you can educate me in.

There are some scientists who propose that all life is descended from a group of populations of unicellular organisms that freely exchanged genes (in the same way bacteria do today) rather than just one single population.

It's an interesting topic, but as I was wondering (and asking you).....I don't see that as terribly significant. Do you?

 

[Valjean]

I've explained this several times, it isn't a bad thing unless you promote the current data as fact. It isn't fact, it's estimation, speculation, conjecture, guesswork, surmise, fancy, presumption, assumption, theory, postulation, supposition.

Atheists tend to try and present it both ways.

How about theorem?

That's how science works. It makes observations, collects evidence, proposes a theorem, then tests it.

So again, what are specific theories or facts you think have changed?
...and where did these 'atheists' come from?

 

[shunyadragon]

1950. Man that's old.
But you were only demonstrating the changes over the years, so that's cool.

It's good that we can still hold on to our library of old publications, because when searching the net, it's hard to find old quotes.
For example, I was looking for the definition of evolution, which once contained the phrase "from one common ancestor", but it's completely gone - replaced.

Still it doesn't take away from the fact that an evolutionist can't get away from the fact that they must believe that life evolved from one common ancestor, no matter how they try to evade it.

If such a definition existed it probably described the hypothetical origin of life being possibly from one common ancestor. Of course definitions change over time with science and technology.

Word meanings change over the years, nothing new.

From: http://www.dictionary.com/browse/vehicle

Word Origin and History for vehicle
n.
1610s, "a medium through which a drug or medicine is administered,"

by the 1650s

"also "any means of conveying or transmitting," from French véhicule, from Latin vehiculum "means of transport, a vehicle," from vehere "to carry," from PIE *wegh- "to go, transport in a vehicle" (cf. Old English wegan "to carry;" Old Norse vegr, OldHigh German weg "way;" Middle Dutch wagen "wagon;" see wagon). Sense of "cart or other conveyance" first recorded 1650s.

 

[nPeace]

The difference is as the science of genetics advanced the knowledge of the evolution of a population became the dominant concept based on the evidence.

Actually it never was proposed that evolution was from 'one' (person?) common ancestor. Before the advancement of genetics many of the mechanisms of evolution were not known.

I was sure I had read years ago that there were not more than one, but I could be wrong, and I can't prove it so...

I did mention that only recently - always changing as new knowledge comes to light. What more can we do? We are human.

 

[shunyadragon]

I was sure I had read years ago that there were not more than one, but I could be wrong, and I can't prove it so...

I did mention that only recently - always changing as new knowledge comes to light. What more can we do? We are human.

I believe it is very possible that old definition may have said, "evolved from one ancestor,"

 

[nPeace]

There are some scientists who propose that all life is descended from a group of populations of unicellular organisms that freely exchanged genes (in the same way bacteria do today) rather than just one single population.

It's an interesting topic, but as I was wondering (and asking you).....I don't see that as terribly significant. Do you?

I'll research it myself - no problem.

 

[Jose Fly]

I'll research it myself - no problem.

Good. I would suggest you look at actual scientific sources rather than creationist ones.

 

[nPeace]

Good. I would suggest you look at actual scientific sources rather than creationist ones.

Yes Your Highness, Master.