Putting the JW Stand on Evolution in Perspective

[Revoltingest]

It could well be that the 8% might be taking about adaptation (micro-evolution) rather than the far fetched notion that single celled organisms can morph themselves into dinosaurs (macro-evolution).

We can see that adaptation is a mechanism in living things that can change their appearance to adapt to changes in climate, food supply or environment....these are relatively minor changes that do not take a creature outside of its taxonomic family, but facilitate survival.

Macro-evolution suggests that all creatures got here by means that are not testable or demonstrable. It's all based on educated guessing not facts.

I'm an engineer (recovering), so I'm a big fan of educated guessing.
But macro is testable, albeit perhaps not to the level desired by some.

 

[Estro Felino]

If a JW says that they are a JW & that they accept the TOE,
then I accept this as true. As for the JWs I know, I don't recall
their individual positions on evolution. But 8% doesn't surprise.

It doesn't surprise me either...since I know one...a JW since the primary school period.
she believes in Adam and Eve made out of clay.

 

[Revoltingest]

It doesn't surprise me either...since I know one...a JW since the primary school period.
she believes in Adam and Eve made out of clay.

An interesting take on biology.

 

[Estro Felino]

An interesting take on biology.

Indeed....when she told me I burst out laughing.
It's a flaw of mine...I cannot retain laughter...
I've lost several friends because of this little problem

 

[Subduction Zone]

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?

Do you realize that when you use lying non-scientific sources that you end up looking like a liar yourself? Creationist sites as a rule are worthless in scientific discussions since workers their have to swear not to follow the scientific method. By doing so they make all of their "research" so questionable as to be worthless. Another "source" that you used appeared to be bogus as well. They sited real sources but did not have links to them. When the source do not support ones claims a common tactic of creationists is to list them but not to provide a link.

By using such poor sources there is no need to rebut any of your claims. Would you care to try again?

 

[nPeace]

I'm suggesting that claiming to have the "Truth" is arrogant at best. Yet the passage from your own Holy Book you cited claims not to be boastful and preaches humility.
What is more boastful than claiming that your group (doesn't matter which group) holds the only and true interpretation of God's word?

I don't know how to respond, other than to repeat -
1 Corinthians 2:14-16 14 But a physical man does not accept the things of the spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot get to know them, because they are examined spiritually. 15 However, the spiritual man examines all things, but he himself is not examined by any man. 16 For “who has come to know the mind of Jehovah, so that he may instruct him?” But we do have the mind of Christ.

Do you think you understand?

Psalm 34:1-3 . . .2 I will boast in Jehovah; The meek will hear and rejoice.

Isaiah 41:16 . . .You will be joyful in Jehovah, And you will boast in the Holy One of Israel.”

Jeremiah 9:23, 24 23 This is what Jehovah says: “Let not the wise man boast about his wisdom; Let not the mighty man boast about his mightiness; And let not the rich man boast about his riches.” 24 “But let the one boasting boast about this: That he has insight and knowledge of me, That I am Jehovah, the One showing loyal love, justice, and righteousness in the earth, For in these things I take delight,” declares Jehovah.

1 Corinthians 1:26-31 26 For you see his calling of you, brothers, that there are not many wise in a fleshly way, not many powerful, not many of noble birth, 27 but God chose the foolish things of the world to put the wise men to shame; and God chose the weak things of the world to put the strong things to shame; 28 and God chose the insignificant things of the world and the things looked down on, the things that are not, to bring to nothing the things that are, 29 so that no one might boast in the sight of God. 30 But it is due to him that you are in union with Christ Jesus, who has become to us wisdom from God, also righteousness and sanctification and release by ransom, 31 so that it may be just as it is written: “The one who boasts, let him boast in Jehovah.”

2 Corinthians 10:17, 18 17 “But the one who boasts, let him boast in Jehovah.” 18 For it is not the one who recommends himself who is approved, but the one whom Jehovah recommends.

Do you still not understand?
...a physical man does not accept the things of the spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot get to know them, because they are examined spiritually.

Jehovah says, the boasting in him is good. Why?
Luke 19:36-40 40 But in reply he said: “I tell you, if these remained silent, the stones would cry out.”
Primarily it honors him, and it saves lives.
https://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/faq/true-religion/
[GALLERY=media, 8783]Smile by nPeace posted Nov 26, 2018 at 7:53 AM[/GALLERY]

 

[nPeace]

Do you realize that when you use lying non-scientific sources that you end up looking like a liar yourself? Creationist sites as a rule are worthless in scientific discussions since workers their have to swear not to follow the scientific method. By doing so they make all of their "research" so questionable as to be worthless. Another "source" that you used appeared to be bogus as well. They sited real sources but did not have links to them. When the source do not support ones claims a common tactic of creationists is to list them but not to provide a link.

By using such poor sources there is no need to rebut any of your claims. Would you care to try again?

You are claiming that they are liars, so how can I correct a mistake if I don't know what the mistake is. Would you like to point it out to me, or are you just happy with chanting, "Liar"?

 

[nPeace]

Excuse my misnomer. I should have said they don't know how to discuss evolution, at least with evolutionists.

How is that different? It's still a lie.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Thanks.
A regular occurrence.
Gibbon genome sequence deepens understanding of primates rapid chromosomal rearrangements

There is however a definition for design that is accepted, and works.
Think of it as you do the term species.

And yet no one can a working definition of "design". The term "species" also does not have a surefire definition. But that is due to the fact that life is the product of evolution. That is also why biology is switching its classification system over to cladistics since those classifications do work. Species is a man made concept that does not quite match what is found in nature. It comes very close, but due to evolution it is hard to make a clear cut border between some species. Now if "design" was true and there was no evolution a clear cut border of species should exist. If "design" was true there should be a working definition of it. Instead all that exists is circular arguments at best. Or perhaps there was a recent development in the creationist world.

And by the way, you need to be careful who you site. Creationists tend to be very dishonest and there is a bit of diversity among them. Some creationists even accept common descent. Those are the ones that came up with the "design" nonsense. Regular run of the mill "Adam and Eve" creationists cannot come even close to a working definition.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You are claiming that they are liars, so how can I correct a mistake if I don't know what the mistake is. Would you like to point it out to me, or are you just happy with chanting, "Liar"?

Use proper sources. Use sources that rely on real peer review and not fake peer review.

If you cannot find the basis of the claims in a well respected peer reviewed professional journal then you can pretty much rule it out as a reliable source. ICR requires their workers not to use the scientific method. Why use such a source?

By the way, you have been debating this for some time now. You should know this yourself. What is your excuse for your bad actions of using such sources?

 

[Subduction Zone]

How is that different? It's still a lie.

Whoa! By this standard all of your anti-evolution sources are liars. Now some of them obviously are liars but you have equated a possible error of @Skwim 's to lying. Every anti-evolution source that I have ever seen makes countless errors. Most of them are lying since they have been corrected and have no excuse for repeating their claims, but I will not say that is the case for all of them.

 

[tas8831]

8%. A telling demonstration of the major misinformation indoctrination that goes on within the JW faith, which is no doubt abetted by their lack of higher education. Almost a fifth of their members never graduated from high school, the poorest showing of all the listed denominations.

Then there's this:

"JWs maintain that the Bible is consistent with modern science, except the entire field of evolutionary biology and parts of geology and archaeology, which are wrong because of the influence of Satan, pagan philosophy and depraved Christian clergy."
source​

.

Explains a lot...

 

[tas8831]

Atheists don't tend to think much about the stuff they believe, do they?

Probably not, because for the most part, atheists tend to accept that for which there is evidence. We tend not to rely so much on mere 'belief.'

I find it extremely difficult to believe that as much as 8% of active JW's in good standing believe in the nonsensical theory of evolution.

Well, I've been slumming around in forums like this for almost 20 years, and have been reading creationist material for more than 30. And I have encountered a lot of people that reject evolution on religious grounds. Many of them also declare things - silly, ignorant things - like there is no evidence for evolution, that the theory is nonsensical, etc. Yet even these folks, ultimately, rely on their religious indoctrination rather than evidence, especially once their assertions are demolished.

As for higher education, if 12 years wasn't enough for you to indoctrinate the masses before they became college students you might want to forgo the effort and read English professor at Emory, Mark Bauerlein's The Dumbest Generation: How the Digital Age Stupefies Young Americans and Jeopardizes Our Future (Or, Don't Trust Anyone Under 30) which discusses "the progressive dumbification of the college curriculum."

Wow - a Trump endorsing Catholic, and contributor to 'First Things'.
Funny thing - lots of simple folk like to bash education, calling it liberal indoctrination and such. And if they even try, they draw on the handful of silly and embarrassing examples drawn from fields like women's studies, gender studies, etc., as if these examples are emblematic of ALL programs at all universities.
I think it is a way to make themselves feel better about not being very well educated. Sort of like how overweight couch potatoes yell "You suck!" at professional athletes when they strike out, or drop a pass.

 

[tas8831]

And you think that belief in the crackpot theory of evolution

Why crackpot?

You can't be a practicing homosexual and a JW. You can't be a believer in evolution and be a JW.

Sounds like a real inclusive bunch. No wonder I yell at them when they come around and try to inflict their crazy dogma on me.

 

[tas8831]

How about a Christian site that explains how the popular press got it wrong?

Did 90% of Animal Species Appear about the Same Time as Human Beings?

Sure, but that deflates the amazingness of the headline!

 

[nPeace]

And yet no one can a working definition of "design". The term "species" also does not have a surefire definition. But that is due to the fact that life is the product of evolution. That is also why biology is switching its classification system over to cladistics since those classifications do work. Species is a man made concept that does not quite match what is found in nature. It comes very close, but due to evolution it is hard to make a clear cut border between some species. Now if "design" was true and there was no evolution a clear cut border of species should exist. If "design" was true there should be a working definition of it. Instead all that exists is circular arguments at best. Or perhaps there was a recent development in the creationist world.

And by the way, you need to be careful who you site. Creationists tend to be very dishonest and there is a bit of diversity among them. Some creationists even accept common descent. Those are the ones that came up with the "design" nonsense. Regular run of the mill "Adam and Eve" creationists cannot come even close to a working definition.

Really, what isn't a man-made term, and why is design used in science if it doesn't work?

 

[tas8831]

We try not to be dull Revolt.....or dumb. We like common sense better than academic degrees....they are way more useful to a genuinely productive life.

Right... Common sense... Like declaring there to be no evidence for evolution even after unwittingly admitting that you are not educated enough to even understand the evidence.

Classic!

I guarantee that we, as a group are happier than all the atheists put together.

How can you possibly guarantee such a thing?
Then, ignorance is, after all, bliss.

I often wonder why people have to pick us out to address our beliefs so much.

Dunno. Maybe because of your general humility?

We are just a minority group with a common sense message.....all based on the Bible....makes you wonder if we are some kind of threat to the godless and the churches alike.......

More of that bliss....

 

[nPeace]

Use proper sources. Use sources that rely on real peer review and not fake peer review.

If you cannot find the basis of the claims in a well respected peer reviewed professional journal then you can pretty much rule it out as a reliable source. ICR requires their workers not to use the scientific method. Why use such a source?

By the way, you have been debating this for some time now. You should know this yourself. What is your excuse for your bad actions of using such sources?

Who on these forums use peer review? Are you saying you can't debate a Creationist hat doesn't use peer review? Am I missing something?

 

[Earthling]

You have done a pretty good job here at pointing out a serious, self-inflicted flaw of JW doctrine.

It is unfortunate that you seen to somehow blame non-JWs for that flaw.

I think maybe you better go back over the thread one more time. The claim was made that 8% of over 300, 000, 000 JWs, that is, 29 million, believed in evolution. There are only 8 million JWs.

So what I pointed out is that some JW detractor needed to do his homework better and be more careful about his ignorant claims.

 

[tas8831]

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.

Empty assertions, repeated lies. Yes, I consider it a lie to make dishonest claims like these, even after repeatedly being presented with evidence (that you unwittingly admit to being ignorant of).

Didn't you just whine about your kind being 'picked on' or something?