by Spectrum 58 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
*Those who only consider only considering "naturalistic" (materialistic) explanations for all phenomena (see below quotes) including origins (before looking at and regardless of the data) are virtually bound to be limited to some sort of evolutionary scenario.
Hooberus that sounds like an admission that the evidence is overwhelming from a scientific point of view and that your position is one of pure faith.
I find, in general, those that have a problem with scientific theories that conflict with their particular beliefs usually want science to give those beliefs some special leg up. Simply put, science is always going to overthrow certain world views, and if your faith stems from such a way of looking at things, then you're out of luck.
Evolution and common descent are observations. We know evolution happens, and we can see from the molecular data that all extant organisms evolved from a common ancestor. The inference here is that the force that lead from the common ancestor to modern living populations was evolution. And remember that inference is perfectly legitimate in science, otherwise we would have to deny the existence of electrons, black holes, gravity and all sorts of phenonoma that we cannot observe with the naked eye.
All people argue about is creation- why not the destructive process of extinction? If you believe that the creation of life and the evolving process are directed by a Creator, then is not G-d also responsible for the the natural events that have caused 95% of all prior living creatures to go extinct? You can't have one without the other. It is almost a forgone conclusion that some future event will wipe out the human species- who will become the top predator after we go extinct? Now you have to wonder what is G-d's purpose in creating a myriad different species and life types, just to replace them with new designs - over and over again? What was wrong with the Neanderthals? They didn't destroy the ecosytem as modern humans have. I am sure primitive worship was just as valuable to G-d as our worship today. Why would G-d favor one erect ape creature over another? Maybe, it is all just random chance after all. The implications are too scary for religionists.
peace,
Moshe
Excellent point, Moshe.
Its always interesting that on all the creationist threads, as soon as the clear and obvious fossil evidence for proto-hominid and early hominid human ancestors is raised, they have no answer whatsoever. I guess they assume god planted the fossil evidence in the ground to mislead and 'test' the faithful! The simple fact is the creationists cannot offer a valid explanation for the hominid fossil evidence, not to mention the overwhelming evidence for Neanderthals.
kid-A wrote:
Its always interesting that on all the creationist threads, as soon as the clear and obvious fossil evidence for proto-hominid and early hominid human ancestors is raised, they have no answer whatsoever. I guess they assume god planted the fossil evidence in the ground to mislead and 'test' the faithful! The simple fact is the creationists cannot offer a valid explanation for the hominid fossil evidence, not to mention the overwhelming evidence for Neanderthals.
The standard line (which as I recall the JWs use as well) is that all these ape-men are either "just apes" or "just people". They just handwave away evidence like bipedal apes with brains a third our size, or of very clear morphological differences between Neandertals and moderns. There's this nebulous, never-defined line where it's apes or humans, and it can never be quantified as far as brain size or tool kits.
It's getting even tougher now, with the large amount of molecular data being gathered. Our relationship to the great apes is becoming clearer. Genetically we share a great deal, right down to viral insertions in our genes, which rather makes the "common design" claim seem even weaker than it already is.
Simply put, JWs and other Creationists just give in to the ick factor. "We aren't animals. We aren't apes." and so on, and yet by golly H. sapiens sits right into a hiearchy along side apes, primates, mammals, chordates, etc.
RodentBoy said:
The problem with Answers in Genesis and all the other Creationist outfits who make the "odds of abiogenesis" claim is that, in fact, they are beating a strawman of abiogenesis. They frequently start out with "it would take one in xxx,xxx,xxx,xxx,xxx to get from organic soup to DNA", when in fact no modern theory of abiogenesis says any such thing. Abiogenesis, like any chemical process, would occur in stages, and that primitive organisms would not have had all of the features that we find in extant organisms. The earliest very likely did not have DNA at all (look up RNA world).I would recommend that you ought to read some real abiogenesis research, rather than going to organizations whose sole purpose is to misrepresent science to prop up their religious beliefs.
And the problem with some evolutionary sites (such as TalkOrigins http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/15/92593/1566935/post.ashx#1566935) is that they give the impression that creationists only argue against "instant" abiogenesis when in fact creationist sites (such as Answers in Genesis) actually deal with a wide varity of proposed abiogenesis scenarios (including occurence in "stages" "RNA world" etc).
Abaddon said:
Ken Ham is really worth reading up on.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Ham
AiG is a money making scheme; he is paid TWICE the average of a non-profit CEO for his post with AiG.
Interested readers should read the arcticle carefully. Furthermore, it should be noted that AiG was given a 3 star rating (out of 4 possible) by Charity Navigator- thus hardly a "scheme."
His 'science' is deceitful garbage. And hoo quotes from the site despite having been shown this? *sigh*
hooberusFor example even if a primitve self-replicating entity capable of self-replication did come about once, numerous factors (e.g. rapid death from UV damage, hydrolysis by water, etc.) would still strongly weigh against its its even short term survival. Other factors would additionally factor against the survival of any potential offspring (error catastrophe, etc.).
Of course, here hooberus ignores no one has seriously talked about abiogenesis in water and open sunlight for decades. The Creationist's best technique - choose your battles carefully - make sure they are ones you can appear to win - and rely upon your audiences' level of knowledge to be at a low enough level for them not to be aware the bit of theory you are sniping out hasn't been credible for decades.
I have a copy of a 2002 college biology textbook, that places at least some stages of certain abiogenesis scenarios in water and under obvious sunlight. Furthermore, other factors that I listed (such as hydrolysis) apply to other abiogenesis (besides UV) scenarios as well (such as ocean hydrothermal vents).
As tetra points out, you ignore that statistics is no friend to those wishing to prove an Intelligent Designer, as that has to be the highest unliklihood of it all, unless you are a presuppositonalist.
So then why don't you provide us some statistical evidence against various types of hypothetical Intelligent Designers?
And if you are a presuppositionalist, your opinions count for nothing, as it doesn't matter what the evidence reasonably shows, you'll close your eyes to it and preach your presuppostions.
Someone such as yourself who has in the past on this forum defended the "presupposition" statement that "Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic" as being "reasonable" should be careful about making arguments that others are "a presuppositionalist" who's opinions "count for nothing" because they are those to whom "it doesn't matter what the evidence reasonably shows", etc.
Add your mean spirited assault against the scientific community, ad homing millions of people whose work and study have improved the average quality of life in the past hundred years beyond all recognition, and one doesn't know what to bother saying to you, as none of it will do any good, and you'll insult and impune those that you disagree with as if you can't beat someone in a fair discussion, you'll stoop to character assasination.Readers can examine my post history here and decide for themselves if such claims are true or fallacious. Perhaps they should also examine your post history.
Tenebreux said:
I just watched an interesting video presentation by Dr. Bruce Lipton ("The New Biology") in which he shows how cells have the capability of selecting which of their genes will be put into action based on either their own perception of the outside environment or signals from the brain, and if necessary they are able to actually re-write their own DNA to suit the environment. The basic upshot was that genes and DNA are directly altered by perception, belief, and environmental factors - and that evolution (if indeed it happened that way) is anything other than a random process.
You might find interesting the recent paper "Perspectives on Aging, A Young-Earth Creation Diversification Model", T. Wood available from http://www.csfpittsburgh.org/icc03.htm The following is from a summary by Eric Blievernicht: "Geneticist Dr. Todd Wood of Bryan College presented his thesis of Altruistic Genetic Elements (AGEs), a theory for rapid diversification of life forms from the few survivors after the Cataclysm. Wood presented evidence that organisms can indeed alter their genetic material in response to environmental stimuli, some changes (such as barley in “Evolution Canyon” in Israel) amounting to thousands of genes difference. It is apparent that higher level programs exist within our cells that can direct genetic alterations along pre-determined paths to obtain beneficial results. This is not naturalistic evolution, because the alterations have to be anticipated and programmed in advance or the random results from changing large numbers of genes without specific knowledge of the result would be lethal.
In the AGE model, life forms spreading across the post-Flood earth would have rapidly given rise to distinctive sub-populations as they encountered different environments, leading to diversity such as the fossil horse series mentioned earlier, and current diversity of types of life such as canines and felines." (from http://www.rae.org/ICC2003.html)
hooberus
it should be noted that AiG was given a 3 star rating (out of 4 possible) by Charity Navigator- thus hardly a "scheme."
hooberus, the Wiki points out that the salary of executives is NOT included in the star rating system, thus Ken Ham paying himself TWICE the rate of a non-profit CEO CANNOT reduce the star rating AiG receives.
You knew this, it was in the article, yet you don't mention it in defending AiG. This is deceptive, but play in the mud (AiG) and you get dirty I suppose...
As for the link you provide to counter my assertions about AiG, this does not in any way do this. You have done this before, using the exact same link. If one follows that link and scrolls down from your defense of AiG you will find the following comment from me;
(I replace hooberus's selection of pages or posts within a thread with the first page of the thread. I am sure he would not want to create a false impression of whether something had been successfully rebutted by directing people to parts of the thread that might give this impression when the entire thread is far more illuminating in this regard.)
I can't believe you consider THAT a rebuttal, especially as you bailed on the thread (again). A successful rebuttal is not just replying. A successful rebuttal is showing you are right, which you signally do not do.
You even conceded on that thread that there should have been links from the articles I attacked to the correspondence. AiG, in two separate articles, makes much of what it claims is a sample containing wood. They make no mention what-so-ever in these articles that the identity of the material in the sample is disputed by the very people who analysed it for them; they use part of the analysis but don't mention the part of the analysis that would rubbish the claims they want to make. This is unprofessional, deceptive (even if unintentional) and typical of that website.
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/97209/1.ashxNow this is a hysterical; a petulant whine about how the evil evolutionary establishment silence the clear truth of the ID/Creationist hero. I urge anyone who gives a damn to read this thread as its a delightful illustration of how Creationists would expect plumbers to competently transplant body organs. It also shows the tactics used, either out of cynical intentional deceit or sheer incompetence, by Creationists and ID-ots in defending their beliefs. And YOU think it's a successful rebuttal? Let the reader use discernment and decide exactly how reliable the judgement of someone who would reach that conclusion might be.
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/74371/1200785/post.ashx#1200785Thread: http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/74371/1.ashx
Abaddon: http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/74371/1200867/post.ashx#1200867
Another instance where your self-deception reaches effulgent heights. People may read the thread, or hooberus's post and my reply to it. Either will clearly show that no successful rebuttal is made and anyone who made this claim was either gambling on no one actually reading the link he'd provided, or a sandwich short of a picnic.
Others as well are more of a demonstration of ignorance on your part rather than "dishonesty" or ; "incompetence" etc. the part of AiG. Take for example your accusations regarding radiocarbon dating (on the thread located at:
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/100566/1735328/post.ashx#1735328 )
Your C14 comments beginning with: "Sadly this behaviour continues; . . ." and finishing with: "This is either deliberately misleading or a sign of lack of competence in even the most basic knowledge of radiocarbon dating" regarded the following in the below AiG arcticle:
Oh dear hoberus, now you're being sloppy. First of all this is just idiotic C & Ping. If you had read my post you would be able to say SPECIFICALLY what was in error in it. Instead you simply post the very article I take apart. So, a simple version for your benefit; any ignorance is not on my part. AiG say;
However, the Flood buried large quantities of organic matter containing the common carbon isotope, 12C, so the 14C/12C ratio would rise after the Flood, because 14C is produced from nitrogen, not carbon. These factors mean that early post-Flood wood would look older than it really is and the ‘carbon clock’ is not linear in this period.As anyone who reads the link to my original post can see, I point out the stunning level of incompetence or deception displayed by someone making the above claim you quote.
- They completely forget that the "large quantities of organic matter containing the common carbon isotope, 12C", would also contain (because it was ORGANIC matter) C14, and that thus there would be no change in "14C/12C ratio".
- The entire article also seems to think that C14 is ONLY produced in the atmosphere (wrong).
- And, as usual, you ignore the fact the Flood DIDN'T happen.
Trotting up and down asking for people to complement you on your trousers when you have none... it's funny.
I have shown that there is ample, reliable biological, radiological, and archaeological evidence indicating a literal interpretation of Genesis and the Flood account are by definition wrong, as trees were growing and Pyramids basking in the Egyptian sun before, during and after the supposed dates of the Flood. There's scads of more 'didn't happen' evidence too, and NO evidence that it DID happen.
Despite having failed to refute this evidence (if you spent as much time trying to refute it as blaming me for you not refuting it you could have a half-decent attempt at refuting it, but no, it's my fault you can't refute it obviously, god's truth has to hide because you're thin skinned apparently), you carry on IGNORING it and making claims BASED ON IT HAPPENING.
This supposed back-up to your claims; http://www.icr.org/pdf/research/RATE_ICC_Baumgardner.pdf simply compounds this error from the abstract onward. It assumes the Flood to be fact throughout, when THERE IS NO PROOF. Is there any surprise this is a Creationist-only, non-peer reviewed paper? No.
And it also, either out of sheer ignorance or the desire to deceive, ignores the fact that the simple explanation for very small amounts of C14 in any sample is C14 is NOT JUST PRODUCED IN THE ATMOSPHERE. I see no reason to illuminate you as to the process, or as to why this would be a variable rather than a constant as regards its effects on fossils, or to tell you whether it is a contaminant or something ingrained in the structure of the fossil, as you obviously don't know, and this further illustrates the point I continually make.
Quite frankly, given the scale of error you show in the above, I won't bother with your vague claim;
Furthermore, what about the errors on your own preferred site (talkorigins) ? Here are some from a "must read" talkorigins arcticle:.. about these links;
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/15/92593/1564222/post.ashx#1564222
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/15/92593/1566934/post.ashx#1566934 http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/15/92593/1566935/post.ashx#1566935
... until you actually specify what they are. As you notice, I say AiG is a pile of donkey poo AND GIVE EXAMPLES WHY IN DETAIL. Please, with your great knowledge of evolutionary science and biology, say what specific Talk Origins articles are in error and why. Wouldn't want you to be an empty vessel and clashing cymbal now, would we?
You are claiming you have succesfully defended AiG when you have not done so in any credible fashion. Why do you persist in the use of such a disreputable site? It's like using www.stormfront.com/nazi/bastard.htm to research the Holocaust. Where the hell are your standards, or is the appearance of being right more important?
I have a copy of a 2002 college biology textbook, that places at least some stages of certain abiogenesis scenarios in water and under obvious sunlight. Furthermore, other factors that I listed (such as hydrolysis) apply to other abiogenesis (besides UV) scenarios as well (such as ocean hydrothermal vents).
What are the most credible theories regarding abiogenesis right now hooberus? What? Don't you know?
So then why don't you provide us some statistical evidence against various types of hypothetical Intelligent Designers?
Okay.
LOL
No hooberus, it is for you to prove the toothfairy exists. I can't believe you're trying to get us to prove something doesn't exist when you know that one cannot prove something doesn't exist.
Someone such as yourself who has in the past on this forum defended the "presupposition" statement that "Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic"
All the data does NOT point to an intelligent designer. If it did, as it would be DATA, i.e. EVIDENCE, then an intelligent designer WOULD be naturalistic, as naturalistic events are evidential in nature. But half your belief system is built on bad quotes, so why be surprised?
I used to believe all the poppycock that ID-ers and Creationists believe in. I then examined the evidence properly. This is why I know all your little counter arguments; they are the ones I used to use, in many many cases. I Lent enough and was open minded enough to accept what rubbish they were to someone who didn't start with the assumption there was a god (which I did start with). Of course, you will no doubt ad hom the reasons for me making this discovery, rather than engaging in a debate on the evidence, as the evidence doesn't matter to you.
Whatever a reasonable interpretation of the evidence suggests, you would insist it happened just like the goatherd said it did.
And time and time again you stoop to character assassination.
When a scientist effectively says;
'Science is based on evidence and method, claims of god do not provide evidence and fail to be validated under the scrutiny of scientific methodology, therefore using god as an explanation in science is invalid as god is unscientific'.
... you make out there is equivalency between that logical stance, and your presuppositions.
Because of where you were born and how your life turned out, you decided (without any clear reliable proof) that the Holy Book of your culture REALLY IS inspired (ignoring you'd have done the same to the Hindi holy writings if you were born in Bangalore, and have had the same inability to prove your belief) and right about everything.
This is not the same as a scientist saying 'real things have evidence, things that are not real do not have evidence, therefore god is unreal, at least in scientific considerations'.
Are you also saying you have never accused scientists of not believing in god because it relieves them of any responsibility to god?
And let us not forget;
a/ you have no evidence of creation
b/ you have no working theory of creation
c/ you have failed to rebut clear unambiguous and multiple strands of evidence showing that Genesis is not a accurate or literal book.
You sit there, blithely typing away with a Museum in your eyes moaning about crud in the corners of scientist's eyes, criticizing robust theories using discredited websites when you can't prove a damn thing yourself, making theories about post Flood speciation when you've been unable to prove the Flood could even have happened in the date range you believe it did.
It's like the Emperor's New Clothes, even a little boy can see you're naked for all your airs.
Funny, it is.
