by yknot 28 Replies latest members private
And they ignore the latest fossil discoveries of soft-bodied marine life that support the fact of evolution.
It is really written for DumbDubs to swallow down and feel that the WT has made a mockery of the last 150 years of Scientific research and discovery.
Any member of the public reading this must see through its arguments, even if they only know a little of the subject.
As time goes on they are going to be more and more isolated in their Creationist ghetto.
It may appear to be written for High School teenagers and their parents, but the real impact will be on people like my parents who have little interest in even studying popular science.
What it does is reinforce the idea, through mind control tactics on those susceptible, that the WTS can expose holes in scientific information using common sense logic. It presents them as a knowledgible authority for those who lack the education and understanding to see through the manipulation.
Worst of all, it misrepresents real science, where intelligent disagreement and dispute are encouraged. The fact that there is no official forum on the Watchtower.org website shows quite plainly their stance on intelligent disagreement with Watchtower doctrine and "scholarship."
I would really love to pick this brochure apart, yet somehow maintain a professional, objective, and non-emotional tone about it. Something that doesn't scream "angry apostate."
The sheer audacity - I have read that article in New Scientist, it showed how gene sharing could speed up the evolutionary process.
I read this article when it came out. Rather than debunk evolution the article explains how genetic information was shared between different developmental strands of evolution rather than developing separately as suggested by Darwin. It shows that evolutionary process would have been much quicker as a result.
Not being a scientist I may not be 100% right with my terminology but what I do remember is thinking how the article strengthened the case for Evolution rather than taking the rug out from under it.
This sort of tactic is why I cannot read the societies literature. They cannot be trusted to provide robust research in their articles and I would be ashamed to promote anything they produce.
Can anybody trust the Brooklyn crazies to explain evolution if they can't get the word "generation" straight?
Billy, it is necessary to use carbon dating techniques to determine the length of a "generation," and that is something the WTS has always discouraged.
I love the that they say that scientists can't (and imply that they won't be able to) synthesize DNA.
http://io9.com/5543843/scientists-create-artificial-life-+-synthetic-dna-that-can-self+replicate
Like Jan Haugland dit it http://corior.blogspot.com/2006/02/misquotations-in-creation-book.html , I think that it would be fantastatic to debunk this new book.
For the book Life it was not possible in 1986 but in 2010, with internet and the possibility to contact the scientist quoted, we can give a great poking to the Watchtower all around the world.
I love the that they say that scientists can't (and imply that they won't be able to) synthesize DNA.
Truth be told, that self-replicating gene is a very new discovery, and this brochure was most likely written and printed before that. But true enough, they're very wrong, and the implying doesn't help them one bit.
I remember showing the self-replicating gene breakthrough to my dub wife, and she completely missed the point, she saw it as nothing special. I'm sure by now she has forgotten about this and when she reads this brochure she will think "oh how wise the FDS is, one more irrefutable proof that evolution didn't happen".
Even if humans were to produce at one point a complete living-breathing creature, the JWs would still say "yes, but in evolution who was the scientist behind all?" - all the while ignoring that evolution never said God doesn't exist.
