plmkrzy: When I said, "In the mind of the general public 'evolution' occurs when one species changes into another", I did not mean that I have followed along with the opinions of the general public, rather that the word, in everyday used as perceived by me is understood that way by the general public. That is why it is important to make sure that in discussing a topic the people participating either agree to use a specific word in a specific way, or agree that each one has bis/her own understanding of that word.
Xander: I appreciate what you said regarding evolution being based on small changes, but my view is that the small changes pointed to do not constitute a part of a process in which the body that is evolving into a different species. I realise now that I should have made that more clear. You are, of course right that the basic meaning of evolution is "gradual development, esp. from a simple to a more complex form" (definition from The Oxford English Reference Dictionary).
Jan: I've read and studied the material presented in "Observed Instances Of Speciation". I made a number of notes, and will be presenting my comments on this document soon. Thank you for bringing it to my attention, it is well written and very informative.
Kind regards.
NewWay
JoinedPosts by NewWay
-
114
15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
by JanH inscientific american runs an article rebutting some of the most common creationist arguments.
short and to the point.. this is the first page.
click for the following ones.. see http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleid=000d4fec-7d5b-1d07-8e49809ec588eedf&catid=2.
-
-
NewWay
-
114
15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
by JanH inscientific american runs an article rebutting some of the most common creationist arguments.
short and to the point.. this is the first page.
click for the following ones.. see http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleid=000d4fec-7d5b-1d07-8e49809ec588eedf&catid=2.
-
-
NewWay
BTW, the use of the word 'evolution' to apply to tiny changes in physical makeup is the thin end of the wedge. Once a person is able to get others to agree to using the word in this sense, it is only a matter of time before they are coerced in to accepting that greater changes were/are possible. I do not accept such a definition as applying to these small changes. In the mind of the general public 'evolution' occurs when one species changes into another. Indiscriminate use of this word actually serves the interests of evolutionists in a way they may not even be aware of, as people can seem to be agreeing to something that they don't actually believe.
-
114
15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
by JanH inscientific american runs an article rebutting some of the most common creationist arguments.
short and to the point.. this is the first page.
click for the following ones.. see http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleid=000d4fec-7d5b-1d07-8e49809ec588eedf&catid=2.
-
-
NewWay
"We are in a similar predicament with our understanding of the origin of life. Since we don't have detailed information on the exact steps we will have to be content with developing plausible scenarios based on information concerning conditions on the early earth around the time life originated nearly four billion years ago. One plausible scenario holds that the first life on earth was based on ribonucleic acids (RNA), a simpler chemical cousin of DNA. Many researchers have focused on RNA because it can store genetic information and it can catalyze reactions; these are essential processes in living systems. In this scenario, it is proposed that RNA, a polymer (long-chain molecule), arose from the gradual stringing together of repeating chemical units, known as monomers, that naturally arose on the primitive earth."
plausible - 1 (of an argument, statement, etc.) seeming reasonable or probable. 2 (of a person) persuasive but deceptive. - Oxford English Reference Dictionary.
scenario - 1 an outline of the plot of a play, film, opera, etc., with details of the scenes, situations, etc. 2 (a) a postulated sequence of future events. (b) any situation or sequence of events. - Oxford English Reference Dictionary.
So the above paragraph is saying that although scientist are in a 'predicament' (thanks for being refreshingly honest!), they still do not fear 'developing' (some will read here 'making up') what they see as reasonable or probable. Note too that this is not cast in stone, for it is only one 'plausible scenario'. Sorry Jan, but this paragraph does not tell me that scientists know what the earliest form of life was, only what they think may have been.
Jan: I don't know when, or even if I will have the time to be able to read let alone fully understand the arguments put forth in "29+ Evidences For Macro-evolution..." I didn't realise it was such a large document, so I think I will have to leave discussion of that particular work to someone else. I will, however, peruse the first few pages, in order to get an idea of what is being presented. Perhaps, as this is 'your' thread and you have made certain assertions, you would like to highlight the main points in order for us to get the gist of the evidence being presented (maybe you already have and I've missed it). I've printed out a copy of "Observed Instances of Speciaton" and will be reading it, as I said, with interest. I will let you know my thoughts when I've fully absorbed all the information (it ran to 16 pages).
Kind regards. -
45
".......... but are as angels in heaven"
by Ice Blue inone of the many teachings that troubled my conscience matthew 22:30. does this mean that after armageddon there will essentially be several different classes of people ie survivors (who may marry) and resurrected ones (who may not) and those born after armageddon (presumably who may)?
does this mean the resurrected ones will be sexless - like 'drones'?
surely then they will not be the same person that they were?
-
-
NewWay
Amen!
-
114
15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
by JanH inscientific american runs an article rebutting some of the most common creationist arguments.
short and to the point.. this is the first page.
click for the following ones.. see http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleid=000d4fec-7d5b-1d07-8e49809ec588eedf&catid=2.
-
-
NewWay
Jan and Xander:
Is it not possible that people are not convinced of evolution simply because they are not convinced. Should not the same courage and independent thinking that this board often applauds not be shown the same respect when applied to other matters? For instance, evolutionists will commend Darwin and others who did not keep with the 'status quo'. It seems to me that just as the tables have now turned in popular support of evolutionists, so do we often see the same attitudes from evolutionists that they decried in theologians when theologians had the popular vote. Really this proves that humans beings in general are no different to each other. On the one hand we have the faith of those who believe in Creation, on the other hand we have the faith of those who believe in Evolution.
I'm am not so happy with the term Creationist as some associate it with those who believe in a literal six-day creation, for instance. I certainly don't believe that. As has been pointed out, evolution should not be seen as synonymous with atheism. So my rejection of evolution is certainly not based on a fear that this could endanger my belief in God. I would also make the point that 'one man's poison is another man's medicine', so one's perspective of what constitutes 'poison' can be simply a matter of personal bias. I think it better not to use potentially inflammatory remarks and labels which, for instance, by association at least, calls into question a person's intellect. That is not an honourable way of debating an issue, as many of us (evolutionists or otherwise) have noted concerning the WTS. I assure you I am anything but lazy when it comes to research, but as I hope you will appreciate it all takes time. Jan, you said with regard to one's educating oneself on evolutionary evidence that, "doing so would require reading some quite technical books and articles". Most people do not have the time to trawl through such literature, which is why evolutionists must seriously consider presenting their evidence in forms that the non-specialist can digest. I will in fact be reading the article you pointed out.
I wrote what I did not to 'stir things up' but to present my thoughts on the first page of the article. I hope you will not consider me to be among those you call 'braindead', since you should know from my various posts (if you've read them), that my brain is very active! Also, if you wish to convince me of your views then you will have to do so by reasonable, logical answers, and not by pointing to my belief in God as an excuse to hold my actual arguments in contempt. I am reminded of the person who argues for the non-existence of God on the basis of not being convinced of God's care for humanity, but that same person would not judge the existence of a human being on the basis of his/her personality or morality, since we know that 'good' and 'bad' people exist. So, lets adopt an academic approach to the subject, devoid of labelling.
Thank you for providing a link on the subject of observable transformation of species, which I will read with interest.
Kind regards. -
114
15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
by JanH inscientific american runs an article rebutting some of the most common creationist arguments.
short and to the point.. this is the first page.
click for the following ones.. see http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleid=000d4fec-7d5b-1d07-8e49809ec588eedf&catid=2.
-
-
NewWay
I'd like to post a few responses to the text of the article that appeared in Jan's first post. I hope Jan won't mind, as there is no debate without opposing views! Obviously it would take a huge amount of time to comment on everything that was said, so here are some comments on the first few paragraphs. "...but the massing evidence from paleontology, genetics, zoology, molecular biology and other fields gradually established evolution's truth beyond reasonable doubt. Today that battle has been won everywhere--except in the public imagination."
Okay, well if this is so, then those who make documentaries and other educational resources have not done a very good job with the general public in showing how this is so. In fact, at least here in the UK, the only information we get on the subject assumes that the audience already accepts evolution as a fact. I'm still waiting to see all this evidence that has "established evolution's truth beyond reasonable doubt". "Besieged teachers and others may increasingly find themselves on the spot to defend evolution and refute creationism. The arguments that creationists use are typically specious and based on misunderstandings of (or outright lies about) evolution, but the number and diversity of the objections can put even well-informed people at a disadvantage."
One may ask that since, "evolution's truth" is "beyond reasonable doubt", then why would teachers feel besieged? Considering all this 'evidence' for evolution refuting 'creationism' should be a doddle! Could it be that children are becoming more demanding in wanting proof? That meekly accepting what is taught as 'fact' is no longer an option?
"In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the fact of evolution. The NAS defines a fact as "an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as 'true.'" The fossil record and abundant other evidence testify that organisms have evolved through time. Although no one observed those transformations, the indirect evidence is clear, unambiguous and compelling."
That the fossil record provides abundant evidence for evolution, is purely a matter of interpretation, therefore it is not a fact, and should be treated with the same amount of caution as those interpretations that assert that species were created individually at specific intervals by God. Really, it is a matter of faith. "All sciences frequently rely on indirect evidence. Physicists cannot see subatomic particles directly, for instance, so they verify their existence by watching for telltale tracks that the particles leave in cloud chambers. The absence of direct observation does not make physicists' conclusions less certain."
The point is that the 'proof of the pudding is in the eating'. If it has not been proved, then it is still a theory. No doubt those who believed that the earth was a sphere before it was proved by circumnavigation and satellite pictures from outer space, had indirect evidence. But the burden of proof rested upon those who made the assertion. Although most of us today have never been high enough above the earth's atmosphere to see earth as a sphere, nevertheless we are convinced that it is a fact, because the assertion can be 'measured' from a host of different human experiences, but more to the point it rests on tangible evidence that we see today, not what we interpret as having been the case millions of years ago. We have no tangible evidence that one species evolved into another. If we had then we have indirect credible evidence as a basis for asserting that life evolved in the past, even though we could not prove that this is actually the way life in general came about.
The example of the finches only provides evidence that this type of bird is capable of 'adapt' the shape of its beak, but it is not evidence for the transformation of major body parts into completely different ones, such as a wing changing to an arm. We know from what we observe in the present that it is possible for members of the same species to differ in size, shape, and colour. Noses, for instance, can be long or short, thin or fat, straight or curved, but that doesn't prove that humans are or were capable of adapting it to a non-human type proboscis.
On the interesting comment about chimpanzee's made by Trauma_Hound:
It seems that in order for animals to share very close physical features with a human beings, it is necessary for their DNA to be very close to that of human beings. That is something that obviously can be proved via what is known about DNA. Any argument beyond that is still a matter of interpretation.
P.S. It is an assumption that all species have common linking ancestors, so all the charts in the world is not proof of that interpretation.
(Edited for typos, and to include the P.S.)Edited by - NewWay on 5 August 2002 10:51:3
-
93
Don't buy into Ray Franz's stumbling block.
by Bleep inray franz wrote, "i was baptized a jehovah's witness in 1972 (three years before armageddon came) and served as an elder for a good number of years.
all i can say is put franz book to the test for yourself.
1)he is making money off a dumb idea.. 2)he was expecting 1975 to be armageddon.
-
-
NewWay
Bleep:
I have to protest your definition that a "non-member" is an "apostate". Please be reasonable and refrain from making sweeping generalisations. Of course there are those members here who by their words have demonstrated that they are 'apostates' according to the Biblical understanding of the word, and in fact many are proud to be called such. However, there are many here who have demonstrated that they have not 'turned aside' from the Christian faith, and therefore are certainly not 'apostates'. The use of this type of word used indiscriminately falls into the "he has a demon" class of retorts. I've tried to set an example of toleration and flexibility to you by treating you with respect, and even in certain cases taking your side where the matter of good manners was an issue - a very important part of my 'culture'. I had hoped that by using the Scriptures to show how those who purport to be Christians should conduct themselves (even amongst opposers), we would have had a mutual set of guidelines in relation to the proper way in which discussion should take place.
I've tried to judge members' characters by what they say over a period of time, although in some cases I've got a very quick 'gut' reaction about certain members which later proved true. There is one character in particular that I do not engage in conversation because it is evident that to do so would not be productive, and I refuse to give fuel to the fire of his/her 'wicked' words. I expect a lot more from one who claims to be a Christian than from one who does not, and I don't take kindly to those who put themselves in the judgement seat of God - after all, the 'gospel' which Jesus gave his disciples to preach actually means 'good news'. In case we need reminding as to what type of conduct and qualities are required of Christians, we might consider these scriptures:
"Continue reminding them to be in subjection and be obedient to governments and authorities as rulers, to be ready for every good work, to speak injuriously of no one, not to be belligerent, to be reasonable, exhibiting all mildness toward all men. For even we were once senseless, disobedient, being misled, being slaves to various desires and pleasures, carrying on in badness and envy, abhorrent, hating one another." - Titus 3:1-3 (New World Translation)
"And if I have the gift of prophesying and am acquainted with all the sacred secrets and all knowledge, and if I have all the faith so as to transplant mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing." - 1 Corinthians 13:2 (NWT)
Kind regards. -
31
WT Speaks Out On Apostasy
by stevieb1 inthe following quote is taken from the september 15, 2002 edition of the watchtower, p.16-18:.
"in the first century, such individuals as hymanaeus, alexander, and philetus, were advocating ideas that did not fit "the pattern of healthful words.
" (1 timothy 1:18-20; 2 timothy 2:16,17) how could the early christians avoid being led astray by apostates?
-
-
NewWay
JT: Thanks for the feedback. I wouldn't have spent so much time getting 'deep' on these quotes were it not for the fact that such an expose might be of use to some members or even 'lurkers' here. At times the psychological manipulation of the WTS gets to me!
Kind regards. -
18
September 8 Awake
by DakotaRed in.
where else but in the awake could we see a condemantion of predictions while also justifyng their failure?.
-
-
NewWay
Reborn2002: One of those "dipfucks" according to your view happens to be my wife. There are also a number of other people here who have family members they love dearly who are at present still associating with the organisation, so I find such expression extremely offensive.
-
45
".......... but are as angels in heaven"
by Ice Blue inone of the many teachings that troubled my conscience matthew 22:30. does this mean that after armageddon there will essentially be several different classes of people ie survivors (who may marry) and resurrected ones (who may not) and those born after armageddon (presumably who may)?
does this mean the resurrected ones will be sexless - like 'drones'?
surely then they will not be the same person that they were?
-
-
NewWay
IceBlue: Thank you for your polite words. I hope you realise that I am not trying to uphold a WTS view for the benefit of the WTS. I try to be reasonable, which means that I am willing to still accept certain things I was taught while an active JW, as long as I believe they stand up to scrutiny. Like most mortals, I have been wrong in the past (believed the WTS was God's sole channel of communication, didn't I!), and no doubt I also currently hold some beliefs that will require change. I must admit that this subject of marriage and resurrection has been 'on hold' with me for many years. It used to bother me that people, certainly if they were resurrected as human beings and retaining their original memories and emotional feelings of attachment that they would not be allowed to be in a married state with their original spouse. Nevertheless, I am learning all the time, and am willing to consider other people's views. This is why polite reasonable 'debate' with many others is good as such contributions make towards at least a better understanding of why people believe the way they do. Sometimes our views can change radically based on new information and being made aware of other viewing angles. If we ever get to the point where we think no one can teach us anything, then I think we shut ourselves off from potentially exciting discoveries in the field of human knowledge and experience.
Kind regards.