Regardless what you think of it Evolution has brought us great good

by zagor 35 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  zagor

  Oi,
  I just woke up. I wasn't aware of the debate that was raging in this thread, lol. Well, I think the topic of this thread didn't dip into the waters of who is right or wrong but into progress of human society and civilization based on natural interpretations of nature vs. religious interpretation of nature. And whatever your beliefs are, you simply must admit that throughout the history only force that hijacked rational thinking and thereby progress of civilization as such was simply religion. Particularly in the last almost 2000 years since Christianity came on to the scene.
  It is a controversial issue, I know. But it’s true. I mean, I would love if some of you who subscribe to creationism explain how you see the progress of science and civilization as such.
  I my experience so far, Including WTBS religious view has rather fatalistic undercurrent to it which basically says "any human progress is waste of time compared to our 'hope' of paradise or heaven" (I wonder if that they think when they have to go to doctor too) I mean think about it, all it does it stifles progress and ensures status quo rests there unchanged and unchallenged. No wonder, ruling class often used religion to keep people in check.
• 

  zagor

  Interesting, no creationist is responding to the challenge
• 

  peacefulpete

  Hooberus you seem to have overlooked my request.

  Forschner, please define 'microevolution'. I used to subscribe to a similar compromise (like domesticated cats and bobcats being related) until I found that my definition had to keep changing as I learned more about the variety of felines alive today to say nothing about the fossil cats and protocats. These species are each highly specialized and adapted from the environmental pressures their ancestors faced. Then where do vegetarian civets and hyenas fit. Genetically they are related to cats and this is confirmed through the fossil record. Then among hyenas we today have powerful hunters and insectivores. Where does it end?
• 

  peacefulpete

  But when the scienticfic community trys to set itself up as the ultimate arbiter of truth, then it goes beyond its boundries. That is what it is doing in the classrooms.

  The scientific community (not really a homgeneous entity so as to be described as one) does not pretend to be the 'ultimate arbiter of truth' as much as representing a sober method of learning and understanding the world. Inpute can be received from any quarter that respects the scientific method. In the world of science 'truth' is a work in progress. It is religion that sets itself up as the ultimate arbiter of truth.
• 

  Shining One

  Zagor,
  Macro-evolution is in dispute. What you speak of is an entirely different thing and observable, unlike the Naturalist's notion of speciation.
  Rex
• 

  peacefulpete

  Rex said,

  What you speak of is an entirely different thing and observable, unlike the Naturalist's notion of speciation

  Please explain where new species come from if not from speciation.
• 

  zagor

  Zagor,
  
  Macro-evolution is in dispute. What you speak of is an entirely different thing and observable, unlike the Naturalist's notion of speciation.
  
  Rex

  Actually what I speak of Rex are great goods that our civilization is benefiting from (including yourself) which are direct result of evolutionary theory being a basis of scientific thinking rather than religious dogmatism that ruled this world up until some 200 years ago when Darwin and few others introduced natural selection methodology. Whether you agree with it or not, you cannot deny that introduction of such methodology has transformed every aspect of civilization. Which I would dare to say is first that is based primarily on reason and deductive logic rather than on myths and legends.

  That is the gist of what this thread was about. Is the evolution only basis of reason based thinking? Of course not. Another is Newtonian Calculus that came to the scene few centuries earlier. But even after Newton introduced his deductive logic and advanced mathematics world as such was still very much engulfed into religion, which was primary ideological basis of its worldview. It was only after advent of evolutionary theory that world started to look at nature with new eyes and renewed vigor. And surprise, surprise that renewed interest into science attracted many young man and women who within a century or so transformed old world into a completely new – simply put they’ve created our civilization as we know it.

  The fact that many religionists do not know today is that Darwin agonized for years over it before releasing his findings to the world. He was afraid of repercussions (as anyone here would be) and what it would do to his reputation as a naturalist and scientist. So being evolutionist was not a popular thing to be back then, it could cost you your reputation. If you had a family like Charles Darwin it could easily meant loss of revenue and well-being. Furthermore, his wife whom he loved very much was devoted Christian so this theory he didn’t bring about just to topple god as some people love to oversimplify it. In the end he just couldn’t hold up any longer.
• 

  hooberus

  On top of the proof of the 'historical record' please provide the URL to where you have thus far show Dendrochronology or the commonly accepted chronologies for the Egyptians to be in error. I've asked dozens of times. Don't count you thinking the article by Don Batten disproved it, you've not ever responded to me showing this was another prime example of bad science on AiG.

  
  
  

  If you are unable to provide such a URL (we both know you can't), it would seem you have evaded dealing with this insurmountable problem for Creationists. A good example is the latest attempt; your contempt for the intelligence of fellow posters never ceases to amase me.

  Where is it said that I am somehow required to provide a detailed online response to all of your claims about such things? I have already taken more than enough time responding to many of your other claims on other creation/ evolution subjects. Furthermore, at one point in time I started (in good faith) to take time to provide such a response (to dendrochronology issues), and you reaction was to launch false accusations against me (http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/49871/2.ashx). Therefore my patience expired with you on the subject, as I believe that it would simply be a waste of my time and patience to do any reseach for you. If you desire an extensive answer to this issue, you should obtain the written materials from those creationists who have gone into this issue (titles of resources having been previously provided to you). Then if you have a problem with their findings you can, discuss it (I would recommend politely) with them, or post it on talkorigins (which may -if in arcticle form- be eventually responded to by a scientist on the trueorigins site) .

  For a reviewed response to things such as bristlecone pine tree ring chronologies, radiometric issues, etc. see:

  Now, here you are clearly trying to give the impression that you are refering me to a peer reviewed article, in response to my criticisms about peer review process or lack thereof. This is not true.

  I believe that all published ICC arcticles have been peer-reviewed by qualified scientists. Though the reviewers they may hold the same basic world view as the scientists who submit the papers for review- the fact also remains that may very well disagree with points, arguments, theories, etc. made in the papers, and thus possibly reject or require modification or re-submission.

  Any peer review of the CD-ROM proceedings copies of the Fifth International Conference on Creationism (2003) failed to comply with the standards normally applied to peer reviewing. You are essentially implying that something written by a Flat Earther and then read by another Flat Earther is peer reviewed.

  Your argument seems to be (correct me if I am wrong) that a creationist paper is not "really" peer reviewed if the the reviewers (even if qualified scientists) subscribe to the same basic world-view as the submitters. However, it should be pointed out that the reviewers of evolutionist papers themselves also subscribe to the same wold-view as the submitters of their papers. Furthermore, your own often used source (talkorigins) says: "Visitors to the archive should be aware that essays and FAQs appearing in the archive have generally not undergone a rigorous peer review procedure by scientific experts. Rather, they have been commented on and critiqued by the readership of the talk.origins newsgroup."

  I find that deceptive.

  These was nothing "deceptive" in my referencing the ICC paper.
  

  Also, you typing 'Bristlecone pine' into a serach engine and finding an article doesn't mean the article disproves dendrochronology, as you've shown in the past.

  I did not find the arcticle through a 'Bristlecone pine' search.

  Please give me a condensed version of Woodmorappe's argument - I assume you read it before providing it? You did read it hooberus, didn't you?

  Previously you launched accusations regards to my referencing Walter ReMine's book The Biotic Message such as:

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/99116/13.ashx

  "You say you only quoted ReMine for "population genetics and evolutionary theory", but ReMine's theories on those areas are incompatable with your beliefs. You are quoting what you believe to be wrong to support an argument. Can you see why I don't think it's good behaviour?"

  "For those that don't know, ReMine believes the number of mutations that would arise from a common ancestor in the amount of time since a common ancestor is not sufficient to cause the difference between humans and that common ancestor (a take on the so called "Haldane's Dilema"). However, in doing so he does LOADS of stuff you'd not accept, (even if you ignore him accepting a FAR longer chronology than you hooberus)."

  Did you read it before launching these (false http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/99116/1715718/post.ashx#1715718) accusations? If not then why do you demand that others read every paper that they may merely reference as resources?

  See what I mean hooberus? Rather than actually dealing with any of the contested facts you use what ever wriggling you can to avoid it. But having read Woodmorappe's article, I am sure you will be able to show me how wrong dendrochronology is. I await with pleasure.

  See my initial comments on this post.

  Now it gets funny, in that my long-held suspicion you often don't even have the courtesy to read responses to you is confirmed;
  
  

  For a response to several of your accustions against AiG see:

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/102274/5.ashx

  Errr.... hoobey huney, on the same page I detail how ludicrous and insubstancial your reaction was...

  I did read you response shortly after you posted it there- thus your claim that your "long-held suspicion" that I "often don't even have the courtesy to read responses" by others to me has been "confirmed" by this is a another fallacious accusation- trhe reason I didn't immediately respond because I perceived no real immediate need. However (for the sake of others) I have taken the time to respond to some of your points there.
• 

  Shining One

  Hooberus,
  Smearing, slander and villification is what we get from these types. You jump on the 'merry go round' and it never ends and never reaches a conclusion much less a consensus. I wouldn't waste too much time on those who are set to contend any notion that their pet theory is somewhat lacking in evidence and believability. One of the reasons that evolution is being challenged so strongly is that Americans generally see through the transparent lies of the cultural leftists. Common sense is more important than arguing inane insanities with the intellectuals, who haven't realized that the '60s generation is passing away and a new age has dawned.
  The motive here is twofold: they do not want to even think that they will be accountable to God and they seek to 'get even' (with God) by destroying the faith of anyone who challenges their assertions.
  Rex
• 

  peacefulpete

  That was classic Rex.

  'Don't waste your time with lying "leftists" "intellectuals" "living in the 60s" who have evil motives to undermine the faith and be unaccountable to God.' Praise the Lord that 'a new day is dawning' when intellectuals will be silenced by antievolution Americans!