June 3-08 #4 Talk - Evolution - A Scientific Dilemma

by still_in74 21 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • still_in74
    still_in74

    Okay, so I have this talk tonight and I forgot all about it. Anyone on here have this talk and can post it here for me??????????

    Or if you feel inclined you can write it for me! here is the source material

    No.4: Evolution—A Scientific Dilemma (rs pp. 121-3 ¶1)

    Evolution

    Definition:

    Organic evolution is the theory that the first living organism developed from lifeless matter. Then, as it reproduced, it is said, it changed into different kinds of living things, ultimately producing all forms of plant and animal life that have ever existed on this earth. All of this is said to have been accomplished without the supernatural intervention of a Creator. Some persons endeavor to blend belief in God with evolution, saying that God created by means of evolution, that he brought into existence the first primitive life forms and that then higher life forms, including man, were produced by means of evolution. Not a Bible teaching.

    Is evolution really scientific?

    The "scientific method" is as follows: Observe what happens; based on those observations, form a theory as to what may be true; test the theory by further observations and by experiments; and watch to see if the predictions based on the theory are fulfilled. Is this the method followed by those who believe in and teach evolution?

    Astronomer Robert Jastrow says: "To their chagrin [scientists] have no clear-cut answer, because chemists have never succeeded in reproducing nature’s experiments on the creation of life out of nonliving matter.

    Year Text 2008 page 84 Theocratic Ministry School 2008

    Scientists do not know how that happened."—The Enchanted Loom: Mind in the Universe (New York, 1981), p. 19.

    Evolutionist Loren Eiseley acknowledged: "After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort, could not be proved to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past."—The Immense Journey (New York, 1957), p. 199.

    According to New Scientist: "An increasing number of scientists, most particularly a growing number of evolutionists . . . argue that Darwinian evolutionary theory is no genuine scientific theory at all. . . . Many of the critics have the highest intellectual credentials."—June 25, 1981, p. 828.

    Physicist H. S. Lipson said: "The only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it." (Italics added.)—Physics Bulletin, 1980, Vol. 31, p. 138.

    Are those who advocate evolution in agreement? How do these facts make you feel about what they teach?

    The introduction to the centennial edition of Darwin’s Origin of Species (London, 1956) says: "As we know, there is a great divergence of opinion among biologists, not only about the causes of evolution but even about the actual process. This divergence exists because the evidence is unsatisfactory and does not permit any certain conclusion. It is therefore right and proper to draw the attention of the non-scientific public to the disagreements about evolution."—By W. R. Thompson, then director of the Commonwealth Institute of Biological Control, Ottawa, Canada.

    "A century after Darwin’s death, we still have not the slightest demonstrable or even plausible idea of how evolution really took place—and in recent years this has led to an extraordinary series of battles over the whole question. . . . A state of almost open war exists among the evolutionists themselves, with every kind of [evolutionary] sect urging some new modification."—C. Booker (London Times writer), The Star, (Johannesburg), April 20, 1982, p. 19.

    The scientific magazine Discover said: "Evolution . . . is not only under attack by fundamentalist Christians, but is also being questioned by reputable scientists. Among paleontologists, scientists who study the fossil record, there is growing dissent."—October 1980, p. 88.

    Thank goodness for the online 2008 TMS PDF that was linked on JWD. That is how I got the source material at work. I love this site!

    Thanks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • still_in74
    still_in74

    bttt

    I need help on this one!

  • sir82
    sir82
    Organic evolution is the theory that the first living organism developed from lifeless matter.

    Well right off the bat, they got that wrong. "Organic evolution" (is there any other kind?) says zero, zip, zilch, nada, about how the first living organism developed.

    Classic strawman - instead of attacking evolution, they attack the idea of abiogenesis, a completely different area of science.

    Oh, and all of those quotes are 25+ years old - a lot has been learned since then.

    Regarding your talk....how about developing a sudden case of chicken pox?

  • NewYork44M
    NewYork44M

    I give you a "G" Do they still give G, I, and W??

  • Awakened at Gilead
    Awakened at Gilead

    I'd give a talk about what the three little dots mean "..." and what the WTS doesn't quote.

    I got your PM, but I'm too much of an apostate to think about writing a talk that contains falsehoods.

    A@G

  • Seeker4
    Seeker4

    Looking at that source material, and thinking I'd have to give a talk from that, made my stomach just churn - literally. A dishonest definition of organic evolution followed by a series of ancient - and very possibly questionable - "scientific quotes."

    I'd love to get up there for five minutes and tear that material to shreds!

    Where exactly did this source material come from?

    S4

  • Satanus
    Satanus

    Perhaps, bring in some of the new evolutionary light that has flashed up from the ground during the last 50 yrs, or so.

    S

  • hamilcarr
    hamilcarr
    Some persons endeavor to blend belief in God with evolution, saying that God created by means of evolution, that he brought into existence the first primitive life forms and that then higher life forms, including man, were produced by means of evolution.

    You could reveal to the audience that one of these persons was our beloved brother CT Russell.

    In The New Creation, the faithful and discreet slave provided us with the following counsel:

    The processes [behind what is recorded in Genesis 1] are not declared--one species may, under different conditions, have developed into another; or from the same original protoplasm different orders of creatures may have developed under differing conditions.
  • LtCmd.Lore
    LtCmd.Lore

    This talk is in the wrong centery... it's not a dilemma anymore, hasn't been for the past 50 years or so.

    Organic evolution is the theory that the first living organism developed from lifeless matter.

    BEEEP, wrong! That's Abiogenesis, not evolution. Evolution happens whether the life form was created or not.

    The "scientific method" is as follows: Observe what happens; based on those observations, form a theory as to what may be true; test the theory by further observations and by experiments; and watch to see if the predictions based on the theory are fulfilled. Is this the method followed by those who believe in and teach evolution?

    I observe that there are many different life forms, hypothesize that they all had a common ansestor, Predict that we will find intermediate fossils between birds and dinosoars, land animals and sea creatures etc., and predict that we will all share DNA, and then I check the fossil record and DNA evidence... DONE. Those are just two simple examples.
    This has been done and confirmed many many times.

    How about belief in god, is that scientific?
    Observe that there are many different life forms, Hypothesize that they were all created by an invisible magic man, then predict.... what? Test.... what? Oh that's right, you're not allowed to test god.. Therefore by their own simplistic definition, creationism is unscientific.

    Astronomer Robert Jastrow says: "To their chagrin [scientists] have no clear-cut answer, because chemists have never succeeded in reproducing nature’s experiments on the creation of life out of nonliving matter.

    Why do they quote an astronomer about chemistry?

    According to New Scientist: "An increasing number of scientists, most particularly a growing number of evolutionists . . . argue that Darwinian evolutionary theory is no genuine scientific theory at all. . . . Many of the critics have the highest intellectual credentials."—June 25, 1981, p. 828.

    Who is "New Scientist" isn't that a magazine? On what did that magazine base this statement?

    And of course all of their quotes are 30+ years old.

  • hamilcarr
    hamilcarr
    A state of almost open war exists among the evolutionists themselves, with every kind of [evolutionary] sect urging some new modification.

    You could say: 'Thank God that creationism has been spared of this nasty disagreements as to the exact nature of the divine act of creation"

  • 4 Types of Christian creationism
    4.1 Young Earth creationism
    4.1.1 Modern geocentrism
  • 4.1.2 Omphalos hypothesis
  • 4.1.3 Creation science
  • 4.2 Old Earth creationism
    4.2.1 Gap creationism
  • 4.2.2 Day-age creationism
  • 4.2.3 Progressive creationism
  • 4.3 Neo-Creationism
    4.3.1 Intelligent design
  • 4.4 Theistic evolution
  • Not to speak about the non-christian creationist "sects":

  • 5 Non-Christian creationist movements
  • 5.2 Islamic creationism
  • 5.3 Jewish creationism
  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit