Putting the JW Stand on Evolution in Perspective

[ecco]

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.

ETA? 1975? Oops.

 

[viole]

The JW's are a worldwide organization with many members living in countries where education isn't available. Of all of the JW's I've known here in the U.S. only one has not had a high school graduation.

I agree. I am sure many JW witnesses did not have the opportunity to have a decent education. Probably they are more than we think.

According to some data, I rate that the education problem affects 92% of them.

Ciao

- viole

 

[tas8831]

What is far-fetched is the person rambling on about 'common sense' being better than academic degrees who then displays no common sense when writing things like this.

"single celled organisms can morph themselves into dinosaurs"


Given that even in your pretend world of understanding evolution, you must know that this is a rather blatant and dishonest misrepresentation... why write something so ridiculous and dishonest?



More lies.

I wonder - do your beliefs give you an easy of of such antics, like confession or something? You'd better hope so...

So glad deeje found my exposure of her dishonesty and ignorance of evolution funny.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Endogenous retroviruses (or ERVs) are remnant sequences in the genome left from ancient viral infections in an organism. The retroviruses (or virogenes) are always passed on to the next generation of that organism that received the infection.

This, I feel, is one of the most compelling pieces of evidence for evolution that there is. A completely natural, low-probability event (the viral infection and DNA transcription of a to-be-used gamete/reproductive cell), that, given the vast spans of time we're talking, has happened a whole slew of times - causing 100,000+ snippets of copied virus genetic code to be implanted in the DNA of the ape lineage. And how much do we share with these apes - in both exact virus and exact location in the genome? Better than 99%.

Anyone who denies that we're related to apes after knowing this (provided their intellect is capable of understanding the facts being explained and their implications) is probably certifiable.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Judging by the comments of the 'usual' atheists here, I can see that they are a rather disgruntled bunch

You're a faith-based thinker. You believe what you want to be true, even in the face of evidence to the contrary.

What you are calling disgruntled is the hostility that arrogant ignorance generates, and you receive a lot of that. People become more hostile when addressing you because you offend them with your arrogant demeanor and destructive message. Arrogance is actually appealing in somebody that know their stuff and can deliver (I'm thinking of athletes like Namath and Ali), and ignorance is acceptable if accompanied by humility. But somebody with virtually no understanding of science telling others well educated in the sciences what is wrong with science is, frankly, quite off-putting.

You've misinterpreted the evidence. We're not disgruntled. We just don't like what you are doing.

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

And? Science is usually correct, and when it is not, it makes corrections. The result has been a stunningly successful program for understanding and predicting reality. Science works.

When is religion ever right? What useful ideas come out of your Bible, for example?

I'll go with the scientists. They deliver.

I have no admiration for all the harm that science has done in this world

And I detest the harm that religion has done in this world, including the Jehovah's Witnesses, which is anti-intellectual in the extreme.

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.

Keep waiting.

The Bible says he will.

The Bible is not a reliable source of information.

The scientists will look really stupid and will be forced to stop whining about no evidence for an Intelligent Designer

Until then, the creationists can continue to look stupid, and whine about macroevolution and kinds, and whine about being ignored by the scientific community and being rejected by peer review.

What is evolution offering?

The theory of evolution is a system of ideas 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.

What is creationism offering?

I can answer for you. Absolutely nothing useful. It can do none of those things.

It appears to me that humans are easy to talk into anything if you keep repeating something

Not all of us. You've been repeating the same failed arguments for years, and nobody seems to be moved by them.

But then again, you are preaching to experienced critical thinkers educated in the sciences using terms that they know you are using incorrectly, and making arguments that they can see are fallacious - usually incredulity arguments, where you seem to think that saying that the world looks too complex or contains too many pretty flowers and animals to not have been intelligently designed, and that it therefore was.

That is, reality to you is defined by the limits of your ability to comprehend it, which is limited by a lack of education. You don't see what others have no trouble seeing.

 

[tas8831]

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

I wouldn't mind hearing your take on it, sure. Do you accept that Mt. Vesuvius erupted in 79 A.D.? If yes, what direct evidence do you think exists for that event?

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.

What?
If there is evidence there is no need for supposition. Do you not get that?

A scientific hypothesis is generally stated as something along these lines - 'If X is true, then we should expect to find Y in conditions A, B and C, ' or 'I have repeatedly observed X under Y conditions, so I predict that Y causes X,' something like that.
You make some observations, perform some experiments, etc., and you in fact find that in conditions A, B and C, you find Y.
Hypothesis supported (correct).

Where is the supposition?

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?

A supported (correct) hypothesis is in and of itself not 'an argument.' It may be used AS evidence in an argument for something else, but a 'proven' hypothesis is just that.

You had written:
"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."

The evidence supporting the hypothesis is also not an 'argument.' It is evidence.

My hypothesis A states that when X, we should see Y. Here is X, look - there is Y.

What is 'the argument'?

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

The point I made was that you were taking the content of a press release, in which the author of the press release used the sort of sensationalist language that a layman would use, as 'evidence' that pelvic bones in whales have a function and thus are not vestigial.

The issue is that why should whales have pelvic bones at all if they were 'created' to live in the oceans? Evolution explains why they have these bones. Creationism makes farcical assertions.

No I meant scientists.

Why do the couple creationists you linked to trump the multitude that see things realistically?

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.

Did you not read any of my links? There were good explanations showing how Tomkins was being dishonest (or incompetent).

If that is what you are looking for, then why did you not indicate as much instead of just posting links and implying that your sources were the bearers of the REAL truth?

And I should also note, that I did not, sadly or otherwise, 'just say' that anyone was lying, I wrote, for example:

"Tomkins' claims are routinely debunked by scientists lacking the drive to prop up a religious belief."

Did you interpret that as calling Tomkins a liar?

I have referred to some as having lied on here, for I know of no other way to describe a person that, just days after having been given evidence for evolution, turns around and says yet again that there is none.

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

Parasites are generally eukaryotic organisms, not bacteria.

 

[Skwim]

And I detest the harm that religion has done in this world, including the Jehovah's Witnesses, which is anti-intellectual in the extreme.

Which should come as no surprise when one considers that there are 55% more Jehovah's Witness high school dropouts than college graduates.

​

.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Well, let's put it this way, if they believe in evolution they do so quietly, because to do so publicly would get them disfellowshiped. So, that means 8 - 10% of the JW's are not, in effect, JW's. They are JW reformists or inactive, or not in good standing, at least they wouldn't be in good standing if their true beliefs regarding evolution were known. If, what the OP, you and the poll says is anywhere near accurate. Now, I know that there are many JW's of their, what 6 or 7 million now, is it? that are only JW's because they don't want to be shunned by their family, and there are probably many young JW's who are not JW's by their own choice, but the numbers we are talking about seem far fetched to me. I would be surprised if you know more JW's than I have and I just don't see it.

Not that I wouldn't be able to admit it, or I have a personal stake in the matter, I just don't see it.

No, I agree with you....these 8% of those identifying as JW’s, were impostering themselves. That really brings into question the veracity of the entire poll.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

As of 2016 there were 324,118,787 Jehovah's Witnesses in the USA*

I wish!

 

[Skwim]

No, I agree with you....these 8% of those identifying as JW’s, were impostering themselves. That really brings into question the veracity of the entire poll.

So you believe that around 8% of JWs are liars, rather than 8% accept evolution. Interesting. Either way it doesn't say much about their adherence to JW beliefs. Or maybe JWs are encouraged to lie to outsiders.

.

 

[Skwim]

I wish!

I don't even want to talk about that one.

.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

So you believe that around 8% of JWs are liars, rather than 8% accept evolution. Interesting. Either way it doesn't say much about their adherence to JW beliefs. Or maybe JWs are encouraged to lie to outsiders.

.

No, I didn’t say that! Why would you twist that? I said, or at least indicated, that those 8% were claiming to be JW’s!

My question: how were those 8% (really, any of the responders) verified as to their real indentity?

Was this a poll by phone?

 

[Skwim]

No, I didn’t say that! Why would you twist that? I said, or at least indicated, that those 8% were claiming to be JW’s!

AAAAAAH! I should probably hang it up until tomorrow. I've been making goof after goof all night long.

.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, I agree with you....these 8% of those identifying as JW’s, were impostering themselves. That really brings into question the veracity of the entire poll.

Why do you think that JW's cannot be honest? Or perhaps you are saying that they are not intelligent.

 

[John53]

What is evolution offering?

Facts and evidence

 

[John53]

Blood transfusions do not save lives.

That is untrue. My life was saved by a blood transfusion in 2001.

 

[Skwim]

That is untrue. My life was saved by a blood transfusion in 2001.

You don't count. Deeje only counts those in which a blood transfusion didn't help.
.

 

[John53]

You don't count. Deeje only counts those in which a blood transfusion didn't help.
.

And I'm a godless heathen unworthy of saving.

 

[tas8831]

You're a faith-based thinker. You believe what you want to be true, even in the face of evidence to the contrary.

What you are calling disgruntled is the hostility that arrogant ignorance generates, and you receive a lot of that. People become more hostile when addressing you because you offend them with your arrogant demeanor and destructive message. Arrogance is actually appealing in somebody that know their stuff and can deliver (I'm thinking of athletes like Namath and Ali), and ignorance is acceptable if accompanied by humility. But somebody with virtually no understanding of science telling others well educated in the sciences what is wrong with science is, frankly, quite off-putting.

You've misinterpreted the evidence. We're not disgruntled. We just don't like what you are doing.

All excellent points - pearls before swine, I predict.

 

[tas8831]

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....

Who is more condescending - the person WITH a relevant educations/experiential background when discussing a topic in the area the person has a background in, or the person LACKING even the ability to understand the science she declares invalid?

Amazing..

...like it makes a difference to their baseless arguments.

It makes a difference when they actually understand the material.

An educated jerk is still a jerk...right?

Yup. And an uneducated jerk that pontificates about things they admit they cannot understand are even bigger jerks, right?

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

Wow, you are a real oracle...
Of course "science" can be dead wrong - phrenology, comes to mind. But then, it was other people in science that up-ended the wrong claims, not religonist numerologists hawking ancient middle eastern tales. Funny how that works.

The system is broken I'm afraid, and science helped to break it.

Coming from a person that needs science dumbed-down in order to understand it and then complains that the 'scientific terminology' is missing and thus the science must be wrong, cannot be taken seriously.

Blood transfusions do not save lives. We are living proof of that.

And dead proof that they do:

Refusal of blood transfusions key to deaths of 2 Jehovah's Witnesses, coroner finds
Refusal of blood transfusions key to deaths of 2 Jehovah's Witnesses, coroner finds | CBC News

We also ring doorbells We were told to take Christ's message to the people for their evaluation....it is offered but not forced.

Who tells you that? The bible? The same bible that says praying in public is what showy people do, so don't do it? Matthew 6:5

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?

Apples and oranges. Your message is fake.

And you buttress it with what must be considered lies about science. Your repeated lie about there being no evidence for evolution is a prime example.