Why are Jehovah's Witnesses reluctant to discuss their faith?

[Dan From Smithville]

Really? You know people with an adequate education that reject evolution not based upon religious beliefs? Can you tell me why they are not to be found on any internet forums, at least not any that I know of.

Strange how these mysterious people that are steeped in the knowledge of science are around, but never found.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Yes I have a bad habit of laughing.. at silly statements. Some people don't like that. Gravity is a ridiculous comparison with evolution.

LOL!

 

[Jose Fly]

I would expect there were some. But not all and all having the same level of knowledge and understanding to arrive at the exact same conclusion and expressing it the same way to the point of mirroring doctrine perfectly. It's a Christmas miracle.

Hallelujah!!

What I find odd, is that all that knowledge and understanding seems to have been lost when applied to discussions on this forum.

That's a very good point. If Witnesses are all experts in evolutionary biology, why do they know so little about it (e.g., @Hockeycowboy not knowing about the basis for punctuated equilibria)?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Hallelujah!!


That's a very good point. If Witnesses are all experts in evolutionary biology, why do they know so little about it (e.g., @Hockeycowboy not knowing about the basis for punctuated equilibria)?

The expertise that is claimed is not the one that is expressed.

Where are those guys at? That might be a much more interesting and fruitful conversation.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes I have a bad habit of laughing.. at silly statements. Some people don't like that. Gravity is a ridiculous comparison with evolution.

No, it really is not. You laugh and yet you have no clue as to what you are laughing at. This is why I try to get creationists to learn at least the basics of science. Almost all of them are afraid to do so. How about you?

 

[YoursTrue]

What makes you think that Anthony Flew was on your side? I have never seen anything that even hinted that Flew ever stopped accepting the fact of evolution. He may have advocated for an intelligence behind evolution but he still clearly accepted a common ancestor to life.

Does that matter that Anthony Flew may have advocated for an intelligence behind evolution, as far as you're concerned? Do you believe there 'may be' an intelligence behind evolution?

 

[YoursTrue]

No, it really is not. You laugh and yet you have no clue as to what you are laughing at. This is why I try to get creationists to learn at least the basics of science. Almost all of them are afraid to do so. How about you?

First of all, I do not know what you mean by "creationists." So it would do well for you to explain. And yes, I have a clue as to what I am laughing at.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Does that matter that Anthony Flew may have advocated for an intelligence behind evolution, as far as you're concerned? Do you believe there 'may be' an intelligence behind evolution?

That only shows that he is human and prone to errors.

If he had studied the topic more and not jumped to a conclusion he would have seen that there is no evidence of an intelligent designer, nor does there appear to be any need for one.

 

[Subduction Zone]

First of all, I do not know what you mean by "creationists." So it would do well for you to explain. And yes, I have a clue as to what I am laughing at.

Creationists in my book are those that deny the fact of evolution. And I seriously doubt if you have a clue.

 

[YoursTrue]

Now you are trying to dishonestly twist what was said.

What Gould found was that there are times of very rapid evolution. Gradualism used to be thought to be the way that life evolved. They found that gradualism, which can be observed, was not the only way that life evolved.

Why does reality bother you so much that it causes you to break the Ninth Commandment?

The reality of what Gould said is not necessarily the truth. And he said so when he said

You do not seem to realize that the evidence for evolution is stronger than the evidence for gravity. You would treat anyone that denied gravity as a fool and yet you do not seem to see how that applies to you and your posts. There is no real doubt about evolution in the world of science. What is being discussed is how it happened.

You can't see gravity, can you? But you can see its effects, obviously. Can you see evolution? Some say you can, not from its effects but from the genes. Staying on the subject of comparing gravity with evolution, gravity can be seen only by its effect on objects. Evolution can be seen only by comparing genes and looking at fossils. Not the same thing.
Gravity = not seen except by effects.
Evolution = not seen as well as figuring of similarity of genes and conjecture also taken from fossils, yet not seen. Gravity has lasted a long time. Still happening. Evolution is said to have started millions of years ago, no evidence of it still happening. Similarities of genes do not mean macro or micro-evolution.

 

[YoursTrue]

That only shows that he is human and prone to errors.

If he had studied the topic more and not jumped to a conclusion he would have seen that there is no evidence of an intelligent designer, nor does there appear to be any need for one.

You're sure of that, are you? Besides, I do not ascribe to the theory that an intelligent designer used natural evolution to further creation. I believe what the Bible says. God made the heavens and the earth, designing the earth with a purpose.

 

[YoursTrue]

Creationists in my book are those that deny the fact of evolution. And I seriously doubt if you have a clue.

OK, you don't like it when you see me laughing out loud. You're funny, though.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The reality of what Gould said is not necessarily the truth. And he said so when he said

You can't see gravity, can you? But you can see its effects, obviously. Can you see evolution? Some say you can, not from its effects but from the genes. Staying on the subject of comparing gravity with evolution, gravity can be seen only by its effect on objects. Evolution can be seen only by comparing genes and looking at fossils. Not the same thing.
Gravity = not seen except by effects.
Evolution = not seen as well as figuring of similarity of genes and conjecture also taken from fossils, yet not seen. Gravity has lasted a long time. Still happening. Evolution is said to have started millions of years ago, no evidence of it still happening. Similarities of genes do not mean macro or micro-evolution.

We cam see both evolution in action and the effects of evolution. The evidence for it is so strong that those that believe in creationism are in effect claiming that their God is a liar.

And you just proved that you have no clue. We see evolution constantly. What on Earth makes you think that it ever stopped?

 

[Subduction Zone]

OK, you don't like it when you see me laughing out loud. You're funny, though.

Ignorant people that have no clue really should not be "laughing out loud". And if you claim to be a Christian you need to be more careful. You do not seem to understand the Ninth Commandment. That is not a commandment against lying. It is a commandment against bearing false witness. That means that believing the nonsense hat one spews when attacking others is not good enough. You need to be able to support your claims when you attack others. If you can't, the odds are that you are bearing false witness against your neighbor. I checked the Bible very carefully. There is no "Lying for Jesus" exception.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You're sure of that, are you? Besides, I do not ascribe to the theory that an intelligent designer used natural evolution to further creation. I believe what the Bible says. God made the heavens and the earth, designing the earth with a purpose.

Yep. The few times that a serious scientist has claimed to have found this supposed evidence for a intelligent designer it has been quickly refuted.

By the way, you believe that God lied, even though you do not know it.

 

[nPeace]

You are not reasoning logically. Anthony Flew never suggested, hint, nor said he "believed" (you really need to learn the proper terminology) in the theory of gravity. Therefore by your "logic" he denies gravity

It is extraordinary claims that require extraordinary evidence, not the other way around. His problem was with abiogenisis, not with evolution. But since you can never properly support your own claims (and I can understand why) here you go:

Letter from Antony Flew on Darwinism and Theology | Issue 47 | Philosophy Now

Glad you found it.
Now please point out where exactly in that article Flew believed in the "fact of evolution".

 

[Subduction Zone]

Glad you found it.
Now please point out where exactly in that article Flew believed in the "fact of evolution".

You seriously did not understand that article? And here you try to use even worse logic to claim that the Bible does not advocate a Flat Earth.

 

[nPeace]

You seriously did not understand that article? And here you try to use even worse logic to claim that the Bible does not advocate a Flat Earth.

I don't understand it, but you can't point out from it where anything in it agrees with your claim. LOL. Classic.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't understand it, but you can't point out from it where anything in it agrees with your claim. LOL. Classic.

Read the article. His only problem was with abiogenesis.

 

[nPeace]

Read the article. His only problem was with abiogenesis.

Seems I can't read too well. Why not point it out to me.