Putting the JW Stand on Evolution in Perspective

[oldbadger]

No it's not. It is, however, constant and cumulative.

...................

 

[tas8831]

Rubbish. What do you have to back that up?

Do you EVER have anything to 'back up' your accusations and assertions?

You sure like to make demands of others yet never seem to even be able to explain, much less support, your claims.

Do you think nobody notices?

 

[tas8831]

Yeah, let's get the 'right perspective':
Scientists Seek to Update Evolution | Quanta Magazine

Scientists themselves can't even agree on the mechanisms behind macro evolution. So how should we toe the line? It might be the wrong line!

This article is already 2 years old. How's this New Synthesis coming?

Odd - the word "macroevolution" does not appear in that article.

 

[oldbadger]

That's a very nice long p[ost where you failed to address...

I never said, "everything written by the Mail was distortion and lies".
I didn't pick the Guardian at all. I didn't pick any paper.
Any comments I made about JW or anyone else's beliefs regarding blood transfusions were fact-based.

If you disagree with any of the above, show where it's wrong.

Ha ha! You want to debate about UK newspapers in a discussion thread about the JW stand on evolution..???.! That's just wobbly!

I posted a random article about blood transfusions.
You trashed the reporting paper.
I asked you to pick any UK paper.
You failed at that, but showed that the Guardian has best reputation.
I posted a Guardian article about the dangers of blood transfusions.
You lost the plot and got stuck over newspapers...!!!
OMG!

That's where you went wrong........ you just posted nutty stuff.

 

[oldbadger]

There are limits to what technology can do. The speed of light may limit practical interstellar travel. to being all but nonexistent.

Oh please.......
......stop the 'I am a scientist' stuff.... will you?

You have no clue about any limits that technology might have.

 

[oldbadger]

If you can successfully explain the inverse square law to him I'll donate $20 to the charity of your choice

I feel absolutely sure that the honorable member will think of the Ancient OldBadger Preservation Trust.

 

[oldbadger]

Not a priest am I. And, God help me! I didn't even finish college. Oh! AND I'm a woman. Three strikes and I am out? No thinking for me!

The first two don't matter, Savage. All your life was a university......
And the third, that you are a woman, is not problem at all.

 

[oldbadger]

Do you EVER have anything to 'back up' your accusations and assertions?

You sure like to make demands of others yet never seem to even be able to explain, much less support, your claims.

Do you think nobody notices?

Ah..... so you didn't have anything to back all that up after all.

 

[tas8831]

I have told you before that you keep assuming what people have or have not done. Your argument was this.
Hypovolemic shock can only be treated with an increase in blood volume. Non-blood fluids cannot be used to replace large amounts of lost blood for what I hope are obvious reasons (saline, for example, does not carry oxygen so well). People do die from refusing blood transfusions.

I provided you with links showing 1) Hypovolemic shock can be treated without an increase in blood volume, and 2) RBCs does not improve oxygen carrying capabilities.
Do you disagree?

Yes.

You always seem to be arguing about something 3 points ago, and ignoring things from those 3 points at that.

I countered your link with a more recent one and by pointing out things from your link that that you apparently did not read.

Do you disagree?

 

[savagewind]

That is what you believe.
But has any JW run a thread to trash what you believe in?
No!

LOL. Say, what? If telling the truth is trashing a person, then that person is in real trouble. Don't you think?

 

[savagewind]

The first two don't matter, Savage. All your life was a university......
And the third, that you are a woman, is not problem at all.

So, maybe you are saying I can really know something about what is written that THEY do not know? LOL. You are so much fun, sir.

 

[tas8831]

Does anyone else find it odd that creationists are WAY too eager to use and apparently reliant upon archived dubious quotes and videos to do their "arguing" for them?

 

[tas8831]

Ah..... so you didn't have anything to back all that up after all.

har har har

 

[Subduction Zone]

More insults from you........ again.
It's all you've got.

Wrong again. You made a series of insults and did not like the corrections. I will answer any properly asked question.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Does anyone else find it odd that creationists are WAY too eager to use and apparently reliant upon archived dubious quotes and videos to do their "arguing" for them?

Quote mining is their number one weapon since it is the only way that they can make it look as if there is any scientific support for their ideas at all. Also many Christians are subconsciously taught to quote mine. When you hear of claims of "hundreds of fulfilled prophecies of Jesus" that is done by quote mining their own Bible. That should be a blasphemous thing to do, but I guess that lying for Jesus is allowed.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

For one thing, this book was published in 1964, more than 50 years ago; a lot has happened in palaeontology since that time. Second, do you actually own a copy of this book? If you do, you must know that you have quoted three sentences, from two separate paragraphs, out of a 719-page book. Perhaps you should read some of the other pages in order to gain a better understanding of evolution and the history of life.

Why? Do you think that these authors wrote something else that contradicted those paragraphs?

As far as 'more recent' data....there hasn't been any further developments/ discoveries that would overturn those authors' descriptions of the Cambrian evidence. No unambiguous precursors have been unearthed. (And never will.) In fact, if anything, what has been discovered since then, just reinforces the Cambrian organisms' sudden appearances. As creationism would predict.

Even Darwin himself recognized that such Cambrian discoveries, representing most of the phyla we observe today BTW....it would sound the death-knell to his theory if no obvious antecedents could be found.

“The fossil record had caused Darwin more grief than joy. Nothing distressed him more than the Cambrian explosion, the coincident appearance of almost all complex organic designs…” (Stephen Jay Gould, "The Panda’s Thumb", 1980, pp. 238-239.)

 

[Hockeycowboy]

@ecco , you only hope.

I can tell what you ignore.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Odd - the word "macroevolution" does not appear in that article.

Does that change anything? Not one iota.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Who knows? @Hockeycowboy is once again doing his usual routine where he comes into a thread, says a few things, dodges follow-ups, and eventually just leaves.

That he's so predictable in that way says a lot.

Why beat a dead horse, dialoguing with those who won't reason? You haven't reasoned on any evidence I've presented, just spout that my explanation is wrong.

There are others here who read the evidence we OEC's post, the unbiased, who are undecided. Just giving them the information that's usually ignored.

(I have yet to find a CD-evolution supporter, voluntarily bring up the Cambrian Radiation. Lol.)

 

[Jose Fly]

Quote mining is their number one weapon since it is the only way that they can make it look as if there is any scientific support for their ideas at all.

Quote mining is perhaps one of the most common reasons I've seen for people concluding that professional creationists are nothing more than hucksters and con men. It takes deliberate effort to take parts of one sentence and mash it up with parts of another to make it seem as if the author is saying the opposite of what they actually said; it takes deliberate effort to hide the full context of a quote.

The fact that creationists have to resort to this outrageously dishonest tactic to support their position exposes creationism for the fundamentally dishonest position that it is.