Need Some Education On EVOLUTION? Start Here! Perry & Axal take note!

by Seeker4 178 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • RAF
    TOH : If your behaviour towards others represents the Crown of Evolution, then Man! do I wish it had stopped or side-tracked earlier. Don't let them scare you, RAF, they are just a bunch of loud-mouthers.

    Thank you TOH ...

    It always amazed me that people think that knoledge is enough (of course it's easy to feel supported by scientists - throwing books in peoples face) ... what about thinking for real on the knowlegde and what we can see and feel ... That's how people find new things ... otherwise we would still have the same knowlegde. So when a scientist can't state that something is a real proof (but only factual theories from some point on evolution processes) I guess that he knows what he is talking about. (But it doesn't seems that obvious for a lot of people).

  • Abaddon

    You can lead a Creationist to factual information, but you can't make them think.

    Anti-evolutionists are a strange grouping. You don't find anti-Quantumists, anti-Einsteinists, anti-Newtonists, anti-Pasteurists, and when you do find an anti-Gallileoist one knows you are either dealing with a practical joker or an idiot.

    For some "strange reason", a branch of science subject to the same set of rules (as far as determining accuracy etc.) as other sciences is declared to be at fault, most often by people who would have difficulty even defining Evolution in two concise sentences without copy and pasting from somewhere. Yet these same people typically accept all the other branches of science with theories sometimes less substancial than those applying to evolution.

    This same group of anti-evolutionists, most of them go to a dentist if they have tooth-ache. Not to some unqualified person down the road who says that all qualified dentists are wrong. When they need a lawyer they pay for someeone who is qualified, rather than go for some amateur legal enthusiast who is convinced the entre legal system is flawed.

    Quite why they insist upon educated, experienced, qualified treatment for their legal affairs and teeth (and one can add their drains, their buildings, their cars, etc.) and yet throw these standards out the window when it comes to evolution I don't know.

    Quite why they accept the products of modern science (none of them would be here on this board if they did not), and the scientific theory behind them, yet insist modern science is wrong about one subject which uses the same standards and methodology as sciences they do accept is hard to understand.

    It is not as though anyone has disproved evolution; and evolution is very disprovable. The entire theory could come crashing down if evidence contradicting it was found, it is falsifiable... it's just no one has managed to falsify it yet.

    So, this strange grouping of anti-evolutionists have;

    • a totally contradictory approach to just one strand of modern science compared to the rest
    • are rarely educated about the subject, to the extent that they often have to have errors in the very basics of their understandng of the subject pointed out to them.

    In absense of proof the theory is wrong, in absense of a decent level of knowledge about the theory, in total contradiction to the professional standards they normally insist upon in other areas of technical, professional or scientific knowlerdge, they declare it is wrong!

    In any other field of human knowledge such a grouping of contrarians would be riduculed as much as a flat-Earther flying from London to Sydney would be, castgated for their laziness and arrogance in making declarations about a subject they know little about. Lampooned for their inconsistence.

    Yet somehow it is the anti-Evolutionists who are the ones accusing others of arrogance, and it is the anti-Evolutionists who get upset if their 'vast level of knowledge' (NOT) about the subject get treated in the way it deserves


    RAF, would you accept legal advice from a fishmonger who was convinced that modern law was flawed? Nope. You're not stupid, are you?

    If you were a musician with a good knowledge of musical history, how would you react if someone told you that music actually was invented in 1066 by a monk called Bert, and this person refused to even really respond to your counter argument or go and read-up on the subject?

    You are repeating arguments that sound like they are made by a fishmonger arguing law and assuming that you have cleverly found out the faults in evolutionary theory that tens of thousands of people who have studied the subject their entire lives missed.

    If you had some facts at your disposal to show evolution was wrong, great. There is nothing wrong with challenging conventional wisdom provided you have reason to do so. Gallileo challenged conmventional wisdom... he had facts at his disposal to show conventional wisdom was a fault. Anti-evolutionists have no such facts to show evolution is wrong.

    If you think otherwise it is simply because you need to know more about the subject.

    Everyone has a right to an opinion; the opinions people have are not of equal worth.

    The racist has a right to their opinion; but their opinion isn't fit to line a cat toilet with.

    Why do you act as if an uninformed opinion can stand modern science on its head when you know perfectly well from your experience with racists that some opinions are just WRONG and of no worth?

  • RAF


    Why do you act as if an uninformed opinion can stand modern science on its head when you know perfectly well from your experience with racists that some opinions are just WRONG and of no worth?

    Racisme (ok that's a good example) there was a time when scientists where giving "facts" about the "fact" that "some people" were less evoluate than other - even women versus men (I don't care who said what - but you know it).

    If to you this theory from the start is good enough ... Well again what can I say? ... why not? but is it a proof. Is it?

    Is my opinion more worthy? I don't know I'm still wondering (I'm not even sur if it is interesting to know and even if we can know it all ... So I won't say that my opinion is the right one (it's a theory - from the same observation : one will say the natural process is creating with a survival process and an other one can say then we might have way more things to deal with at our stage if it was juste that) ... it is my view on the matter NOW.

    You are talking to me as if I don't know about evolutioniste statements (part of proof and part of theory) Why? I wonder?

    Again is it the "fact" that I'm saying that I'm a believer that make you all think that I do avoid any other proof on any matter? It's weird because I don't. Cause that would be stupid (there's no way to talk against a PROOF).

    I'm just fed up with the "We have supportive materiel as theory to be able to state that we are the product of an hasardous developpement" from one cell (some things just do not happen by hasard even with the natural process that we human can make it happen ... wherever it leads - so it's all about the intelligence of the material from the start (God = Essence at matury / not God = a cell at matury) Again it is not fare one from the other (it actually almost means the same to me)

    So Now if just knowing that I'm believer leads to any other understanding about the details of my belief ... it means that this detail doesn't allow people to understant my point of view. That's why I'm always saying that details kills the understanding of any concept from its bases.

    Understand that I've never stated that I know the truth ... I just believe the concept of God (again from my perspective) does my understanding about this is only related to the bible (OF COURSE NOT) and still wonder about lots of things I just can't stop wondering. but I believe in the spirit ... Why? because to me we have a spirit (my belief) which from any desire to react and create we still have the possibility to say I want this or I don't want this (whether it is possible or not). That's my statement.

  • kid-A

    "You can lead a Creationist to factual information, but you can't make them think."

    That pretty much sums it all up. The sad reality is creationists are not interested in facts and will conveniently IGNORE hard, cold anthropological and/or molecular genetic evidence when it clashes with their preconceived notions of their little universe run by their wizard of oz in the sky.....pitiful.

    While Scientists need to be continually vigilant, especially my colleagues in the States against Chrisitan Fundamentalist activists who are trying to get their silly fairy tales taught in SCIENCE class rooms, take comfort in the fact that the creationists HAVE LOST the battle, a long, long time ago. Private and Federal funding for evolutionary biology research programs is ever increasing in both the USA and Canada, so the pitiful moans of the creationists are being completely and utterly ignored. Science will progress, evidence will be uncovered, hypotheses will be tested, and the presence of these creationist ankle-biters is completely irrelevant. They are IGNORED by ALL scientific research funding agencies.

    Scientific researchers simply ignore their silly rants, and we continue our research programs. My laboratory has over 1/4 million dollars per year for our research program, part of which involves experiments in evolutionary neurobiology, an exciting new series of experiments we have planned.

    So a message from the scientific community to the Perrys, Apostate Kates, Axals and RAFs of the world: rant and moan ALL YOU WANT....because NOBODY cares! LOL...

  • RAF

    Kid A

    If you ignore what I’m taking into consideration … Again I can’t care less about the fact that you care or not … keep on ignoring and following whatever you want to believe … it is your right anyway to not wondering more thanthat and take theories as proof …

  • proplog2

    I have presented this particular argument many times.

    Creationists have never dealt with it.

    Scientists are dealing with material objects - fossils, dna, mutations, classification of organismic structure etc. None of these things can actually talk. These things can't communicate with us in our language.

    Creationists apparently believe that evolution is "logical and rational" ENOUGH that it is believable. They fight it because it threatens the spirituality of their fellow believers and especially their children.

    On the other hand creationists claim that all of this was created by an entity that has the power to explain where evolutionists are making their mistakes - where they are getting off track. This entity can talk in human tongues if necessary. If nothing else he could guide a spirit led scientific researcher to the knock out punch to disprove evolution. What a vindication that would be for God.

    Instead we are left with a book that doesn't even acknowledge the existence of the brain. We are left with a book that teaches that sperm is a fluid with little men and women floating in it. The Bible doesn't even acknowledge that women have eggs. Women are just soil - barren or fertile. The reason the Bible doesn't have this knowledge is because scientists didn't have microscopes to make that determination until fairly recently.

    Christians can only reach one conclusion. God likes it this way. He is allowing evolution to separate the faithful from the unfaithful. He is giving the Devil permission to use this weapon to capture people for the burning fires of hell.

    God believes in the survival of the fittest. It appears God is REALLY an evolutionist.


  • RAF


    It’s interesting to read that you think you know what we all (as believers) think on the matter (maybe it's what you once thought - I don't know) … It’s like there is only two sides … Well I can tell you that there is not only two sides and only one kind of belief for believers (and I don’t think that I need to prove this – just read this forum)

  • Apostate Kate
    Apostate Kate
    My god, woman, you're intellecutally pathetic,

    I will refrain from copying and pasting all the other attemps to denigrate non evolutionists on this thread since I have already done it once. You can lead an evolutionists to see cultic thinking but you can't make them stop doing it.

    RAF evolutionists believe that evolution is a theory AND a fact. They will apply adaptation and claim that there is proof that this sytem will create a higher functioning, more complex life form. Though there is no proof of this happening.

    They will point to the fossil record yet the facts are that there are periods of teeming life, and periods of die offs. The Cambrian explosian is but one. The lack of transitional fossils is another problem they will overlook.

    I am not oppsed to the theory as I used to believe it. Learning more about science lead me to a different conclusion but we are not supposed to actually discuss it as we are considered "intellecutally pathetic." Very poor speeling by the way you intellectually superior godman you.

    All I'm saying bruthaaaahs is give peace a chance...uosay ancay avehay allay ethay ectretsay eetingsay uouyay antay otay...

    Just don't be so cultic that you have to be so mean and hateful about these threads. It is very cultic....

    Come on everybody sing it with me....all weeee are saaaying is give peace a chaaaaaaaaance....

    doncha feel good now?

    {{{{{{{{{evolutionists}}}}}}}}} love you really I do..

  • RAF

    ... AK

    Ok this is probably my last post on this thread.

    Since there is no proof I could just enjoy the way the whole thing have handled by every sides. (and the name calling was very interesting to notice and just a pity) ... and the only onces which stand are those who can stay in the midlle (WE DON'T KNOW FOR SURE)

    Wherever it leaded : Hate or Love (well that a bit too strong a guess ) it's all about I'm right and you are wrong (but again NO PROOF) and the Ego got stuck on it like I HAVE TO PROVE he/she is stupid or something alike (but WHAT CAN YOU PROVE?).

    Of course this is getting just not interesting at all at the end.
    I just didn't want to make it too easy for the evolutioniste side to say we have proved something (YOU DIDN'T) Why? (BECAUSE IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO PROVE IT) just like believers can't prove anything ... PERIOD.

  • dark angle
    dark angle

    very hot & interesting discussion here! well, i've discovered a very great attractive & unifying concept for us. i call it EVOLUTIONARY CREATION! IT MIGHT ACCOMMODATE ALL OF US HERE. ITS AN IDEA THAT GOD MIGHT HAVE USED THE FORCES OF NATURE (E.G. EVOLUTION) TO SHAPE THE WORLD WE KNOW TODAY. just a cooling & closing remark for this action pack site!!!!

Share this