Putting the JW Stand on Evolution in Perspective

[Jose Fly]

I can see the resemblance

But I never see the proof. I see lots of suggestion and supposition, but the bones don't speak unless science gives them a voice.

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury....the prosecution has presented so-called "evidence" they claim links the defendant to the murder. Footprints, fingerprints, blood stains, DNA. But did anyone see the crime take place? No. So all they have is suggestion and supposition, and all that "evidence" doesn't speak until the prosecutors give it a voice.

Jury of Jehovah's Witnesses: NOT GUILTY!

 

[Subduction Zone]

What is


No, I'm asking you, why do you debate Creationist who do not use peer review, but you complain about debating articles they link to that are not peer reviewed?

@tas8831 I'll get back to you later.

My point is that creationists cannot support their claims without relying on liars and frauds. If they saw this there would be no debate.

Tell me, if you knew that a Christian was lying for Christianity what would you think of him? Do you think that someone that lies for Christianity is helping it?

 

[Subduction Zone]

In part, but I think he is also incompetent in the areas he pontificates about.

I am always weary when I see someone with so many past affiliations - tells me that he is unemployable for the long term, not that he has a great deal of expertise. Just like Dembski.

In his laughably inept treatment of 'cow to whale' evolution, he unwittingly shows himself to think that each and every little tidbit of morphological change must be caused by a specific group of mutations - how else could he claim he 'stopped at 50,000'. It is easy to spot a smooth-talking charlatan like Berlinski if you understand the material better than they do.
This is why IDists and creationists like him - he sounds really smart, he is super confident, and he says things they like. It is not at all that they actually understand the material.

Actually I prefer the term IDiots

 

[tas8831]

But I never see the proof. I see lots of suggestion and supposition, but the bones don't speak unless science gives them a voice.

No, you ignore the 'proof', or pretend to understand it and dismiss it.

You are only fooling yourself.

 

[ChristineM]

I can see the resemblance

But I never see the proof. I see lots of suggestion and supposition, but the bones don't speak unless science gives them a voice.

Yes, old one, my kids have been saying that for years.

Bones do speak when analysed so I'm guessing the reason you dont see is because you are scared of looking.

 

[Agent]

Jehovah's Witnesses

#%$&@*&%$!

Juli

 

[Deeje]

I don't really have a problem with the JWs themselves (that is, problems that aren't inherent to Christianity). The WT is what I have a problem with. They can't take any criticism, so they just kick any one out they don't agree with.

That is not true for several reasons. We are not a club that you just "join" because you found something attractive about what we teach.
If you are going to become one of Jehovah's Witnesses, you are making a commitment to become a disciple of Jesus Christ and getting baptised is an outward symbol of dedicating the rest of your life to living as a Christian. It involves vows, just like a marriage. It involves time and effort to get to know the one you have chosen as a partner, because that is what we become with God and his son. We enter this relationship with our eyes wide open, knowing full well that there are rules....all found in the Bible.

Just as it involves getting to know a mate well before one makes a commitment in marriage, we too spend time in study and prayer before we take that step. We have made sure that what we believe is acceptable to us and to God. Every one of Jehovah's Witnesses is an ordained minister. We all have the assignment to preach and to teach others about God's Kingdom as the only hope for this world. (Matthew 24:14)

Can a person just walk out of a marriage? Yes they can, but if they want to marry someone else, they need to get a legal divorce. When you have made a commitment to God to serve him for the rest of your life, there is no leeway for introducing your own ideas, as if you somehow know better. The Bible forms the basis for our commitment and there is no reason to suddenly disagree with what you accepted as truth before you made that commitment.

Anyone can disagree, and anyone can leave, but a "divorce" is necessary so that it becomes known that they have removed themselves from our spiritual family either by their conduct, or by their choice. Why would anyone want to stay in the company of people that they disagree with, often argumentatively? If you become estranged from a marriage mate, and there is conflict, you don't want to stay in their company and usually, the feeling is mutual. Separation and divorce divorce may be the outcome, but not always. Problems can be solved with reason and humility along with prayer.

If you don't want to be a JW anymore then there's the door.....if people want to make a fuss, then dissenters are not welcome because they only cause division in the congregation. There is enough division in the world and we value our unity and peace. We respect our teachers. Disrespect and pride kills unity and joy, both of which we enjoy in our ranks. There are ways to ask questions that don't involve either pride or disrespect.

The only ones kicked out are those who want to stay and cause contention and division....and quite frankly, we don't need them.

 

[Agent]

I'm not winning any popularity contests, neither did I do so in the past. The Yahoo answers community asked me to leave when I hit 10,000, now I am at 13,000 since I stuck around. Fireball died, and an imposter took her place; but my friend Juli is still around, and she is just as uncouth as ever.

 

[nPeace]

The evidence you present for the authenticity of the Bible when you go from door to door.

I was just kidding. I was being the opponent for a second.

 

[nPeace]

That is not true for several reasons. We are not a club that you just "join" because you found something attractive about what we teach.
If you are going to become one of Jehovah's Witnesses, you are making a commitment to become a disciple of Jesus Christ and getting baptised is an outward symbol of dedicating the rest of your life to living as a Christian. It involves vows, just like a marriage. It involves time and effort to get to know the one you have chosen as a partner, because that is what we become with God and his son. We enter this relationship with our eyes wide open, knowing full well that there are rules....all found in the Bible.

Just as it involves getting to know a mate well before one makes a commitment in marriage, we too spend time in study and prayer before we take that step. We have made sure that what we believe is acceptable to us and to God. Every one of Jehovah's Witnesses is an ordained minister. We all have the assignment to preach and to teach others about God's Kingdom as the only hope for this world. (Matthew 24:14)

Can a person just walk out of a marriage? Yes they can, but if they want to marry someone else, they need to get a legal divorce. When you have made a commitment to God to serve him for the rest of your life, there is no leeway for introducing your own ideas, as if you somehow know better. The Bible forms the basis for our commitment and there is no reason to suddenly disagree with what you accepted as truth before you made that commitment.

Anyone can disagree, and anyone can leave, but a "divorce" is necessary so that it becomes known that they have removed themselves from our spiritual family either by their conduct, or by their choice. Why would anyone want to stay in the company of people that they disagree with, often argumentatively? If you become estranged from a marriage mate, and there is conflict, you don't want to stay in their company and usually, the feeling is mutual. Separation and divorce divorce may be the outcome, but not always. Problems can be solved with reason and humility along with prayer.

If you don't want to be a JW anymore then there's the door.....if people want to make a fuss, then dissenters are not welcome because they only cause division in the congregation. There is enough division in the world and we value our unity and peace. We respect our teachers. Disrespect and pride kills unity and joy, both of which we enjoy in our ranks. There are ways to ask questions that don't involve either pride or disrespect.

The only ones kicked out are those who want to stay and cause contention and division....and quite frankly, we don't need them.

Great illustration Deeje. I just stole it. I'm sure you won't mind me using it. I'll be sure to mention that I heard someone use it.

 

[nPeace]

My point is that creationists cannot support their claims without relying on liars and frauds. If they saw this there would be no debate.

Tell me, if you knew that a Christian was lying for Christianity what would you think of him? Do you think that someone that lies for Christianity is helping it?

I don't know who are liars.
I may use an argument from someone else however.
I try to understand the argument, so that if you, or the person responds, I could respond back.
Since you don't like to respond to links, but give me links to read, I consider that a bit unfair, but I know what I will do next time.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I'll be the first in line to openly criticize the JW's as I have here before, but I just don't think they are stupid enough to buy into the theory of evolution in the numbers you suggest.

You mean not smart enough. The theory is correct.

This issue serves as a litmus test for many rational skeptics. If you can't figure out that evolutionary theory is correct, the rest of your opinions about science and probably much of academia are going to be equally uninformed.

science is grossly overestimated in it's ability to speculate accurately regarding Jehovah God's wonderful creation!

Religion is grossly overestimated in its ability to speak accurately about anything, including this alleged Jehovah.

Science doesn't care about gods or comment on them at all, which probably miffs a lot of theists. Gods are useless ideas in the 21st century, concepts that add nothing to any scientific theory.

Of course, evidence doesn't really mean anything it just makes [atheists] think they are special in some way.

We are special. We're the ones who transcended religion, faith, and superstition. We're the ones who understand that evidence actually does mean something - or should.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

We like common sense better than academic degrees....they are way more useful to a genuinely productive life.

I like having both.

And rejecting evolution for creationism isn't common sense. You've rejected an idea that unifies mountains of data from a multitude of sources, accurately makes predictions about what can and cannot be found in nature, provides a rational mechanism for evolution consistent with the known actions of nature, accounts for both the commonality of all life as well as biodiversity, and has had practical applications that have improved the human condition in areas like medicine and agriculture for an idea like creationism that can do none of that. That's not common sense, either.

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

I guarantee that I am happier than you.

You tell us how horrible you think mankind and the world are, and you seem to be living life as if you're waiting for something better - as if you're waiting at some cosmic bus stop for ride out of here. You couldn't be happy believing such things. You're just hopeful - hoping for something that has been promised to you, but for which there is no evidence.

I, on the other hand, am happy to be here now, and content with my lot in life.

Incidentally, this wretched species just landed on Mars again. Hooray for mankind.

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.

Nah. Evolution is based in facts. It's your religion that is pure, unevidenced speculation. But you're not able to tell the difference.

Humans have always been human...apes have always been apes. They still are.

The evolution of humans from ancestral apes is a fact. If you need to deny reality to support your creationist beliefs, your beliefs are wrong.

As I mentioned to you on another thread, faith is guessing. If you ever guess correctly about some aspect of reality, you will know because reality will support you. Had you guessed that evolution rather than creationism was the correct choice, you wouldn't need to be fighting off reality and be denying science. You wouldn't be forced to deny obvious truths, but rather, like the discovery of human chromosome 2 and its implications, find that they support your lucky guess.

But that didn't happen, did it? Advances in science continue to contradict creationist beliefs. Why? Because they're wrong. Like the alchemists and astrologers who also guessed incorrectly, creationists are able to generate nothing of use to the world.

Astronomy and chemistry were the reason and evidence based disciplines that replaced the faith-based ancestors, and guess what? Suddenly, study of the the stars and chemicals became productive. That's the sine qua non of a correct idea. The sterility of creationism, alchemy, and astrology are what identify them as wrong ideas.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't know who are liars.
I may use an argument from someone else however.
I try to understand the argument, so that if you, or the person responds, I could respond back.
Since you don't like to respond to links, but give me links to read, I consider that a bit unfair, but I know what I will do next time.

If a person makes an error, is corrected, not once but many times, is that person a liar?

I can supply you with all sorts of links and videos. What would you like to learn about? I am serious here. I can find you quite a few science based sources.

 

[ecco]

There are ways to ask questions that don't involve either pride or disrespect.

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.

 

[david-david]

.

The Buddhist might say, 'Evolution from Light to Rest'. It is still 'evolution'.
Hindu might say, 'Evolution from Brahma to Humanity'. It is still 'evolution'
(J)ewish might say, 'Evolution from Night to Morning'. It is still 'evolution'.

Unaffiliated might say, 'Evolution from life to life'. It is still 'evolution'.
Catholic might say, 'Evolution from Creator to It is good'. It is still 'evolution'.
Orthodox might say, 'Evolution from Life-Giver to material'. It is still 'evolution'.
Mainline Protestant might say, 'Evolution from it is good to the 'Protest' in the Garden'. But is this 'evolution'?
Muslim might say, 'Evolution from Allah to Ibrahim. All things prior is not life'.


Historically Black Protestant might say, 'Evolution from Creator to 'equal rights' after Emancipation'. We are 'evolving'.
Evangelical Protestant might say, 'Evolution from receiving to giving. It is still 'evolution'.
Mormon might say, 'Evolution from God to life to Moroni. Moroni evolved into an angel. It is still 'evolution'.
Jehovah's Witness might say, 'Evolution from God to The LORD to Jehovah. It is still 'evolution'.

 

[nPeace]

If a person makes an error, is corrected, not once but many times, is that person a liar?

I can supply you with all sorts of links and videos. What would you like to learn about? I am serious here. I can find you quite a few science based sources.

You didn't answer my question. Were you thinking I didn't really want it answered?
What is "Design" in the creationist sense?

 

[Skwim]

The Buddhist might say, 'Evolution from Light to Rest'. It is still 'evolution'.
Hindu might say, 'Evolution from Brahma to Humanity'. It is still 'evolution'
(J)ewish might say, 'Evolution from Night to Morning'. It is still 'evolution'.

Unaffiliated might say, 'Evolution from life to life'. It is still 'evolution'.
Catholic might say, 'Evolution from Creator to It is good'. It is still 'evolution'.
Orthodox might say, 'Evolution from Life-Giver to material'. It is still 'evolution'.
Mainline Protestant might say, 'Evolution from it is good to the 'Protest' in the Garden'. But is this 'evolution'?
Muslim might say, 'Evolution from Allah to Ibrahim. All things prior is not life'.


Historically Black Protestant might say, 'Evolution from Creator to 'equal rights' after Emancipation'. We are 'evolving'.
Evangelical Protestant might say, 'Evolution from receiving to giving. It is still 'evolution'.
Mormon might say, 'Evolution from God to life to Moroni. Moroni evolved into an angel. It is still 'evolution'.
Jehovah's Witness might say, 'Evolution from God to The LORD to Jehovah. It is still 'evolution'.

That they might, but in a forum titled "Evolution Vs Creationism," unless one has been living in a cave all their life they should surely be aware that the evolution under discussion is biological evolution, and none of the others.

.
.

 

[nPeace]

Please define the difference between circumstantial and solid evidence.

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

Not really.
Evidence for the hypothesis is evidence that the hypothesis is correct. It is not itself an 'argument.'

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?

Ah, the "useless vestige" bit... What you linked to is a news release. Such things tend to want to grab people's attention. You may not have noticed, for example, that it was not the researcher that said anything about "useless vestiges", it was the press release's author. The actual research article's Abstract ends with:

"This study provides evidence that sexual selection can affect internal anatomy that controls male genitalia. These important functions may explain why cetacean pelvic bones have not been lost through evolutionary time."

They are pelvic bones, after all. Yet whales have no lower limbs. So why are there pelvic bones at all?

See the actual issue?

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

Probably not evolutionary biologists, and the scientists that actually did the whale pelvis research don't either.

You mean the creationists that you just linked to?

No I meant scientists.

Tomkins' claims are routinely debunked by scientists lacking the drive to prop up a religious belief. A couple of examples of Tomkins' fiskings:
Debunking Creationist study criticizing similiarity between human and chimpanzee DNA | Genetic Literacy Project

There is some profanity in this one, be aware -
Do the creationist shuffle and twist! | ScienceBlogs

Human - Chimp similarity update - How Tomkins did it : junkscience

It is easy to believe that creation 'scientists' are doing the Lord's work, debunking evilution left and right, providing that you are not very well versed in the relevant science and have a tendency to simply believe what creationists tell you.

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.

The same way they survive in soil and in the air and in water.

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

 

[Subduction Zone]

You didn't answer my question. Were you thinking I didn't really want it answered?
What is "Design" in the creationist sense?

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?