Blatant misquote in the Origin of Life booklet

by bohm 33 Replies latest jw friends

  • NomadSoul

    Good catch! I remember I found at least two quotes that were misquoted on the creation book. And that's because I looked them up.

  • wasblind

    notice to all lukers:

    Follow the example of the Boreans, don't just take anyones word, look it up for yourselves!!!!!!!

  • moshe

    I can't believe the F&DS class let these errors slip through- wasn't anyone in the writing department talking to them?

  • bohm

    NomadSoul: . The booklet is full of funky stuff. For example, the last section of chapter 2 on page 12 is properly the most bullshit-packed column in the booklet. It seem that the author realize he has managed to write allmost an entire chapter without really gross errors, and then seem determined to get everything wrong all at once!

    Not to be outdone, the author of page 25 create properly the worst argument from analogy i have ever seen a creationist make. It is so bad its funny. I could allmost hear the voice of John Stewart when i read it: "!!!AND WHAT IF 4 OF THE 5 FRAMES ONLY CONTAINED DARKNESS!!!!"

    The booklet is an onion. The more you peel away, the more you cry.

    I have devised a good heuristic for finding quotemining: When you read something in creationist litterature, and it sound to good to be true, it is!

  • besty

    great job bohm

  • NomadSoul

    Bohm, talking about funky stuff, you can even find that in their online articles. (I was trying to see if they had that brochoure online)

    Check this out:

    What I find funny is that at the beginning of the article they say this:

    Evolutionists generally claim that a population of animals gradually developed into a population of humans, denying that there was once only one man. However, the Bible presents a very different picture. It says that we originate from one man, Adam. The Bible account presents Adam as a historical person. It gives us the names of his wife and some of his children. It tells us in detail what he did, what he said, when he lived, and when he died. Jesus did not consider that account as just a story for uneducated people.

    At the end of the article they use Micheal Behe's quote:

    Teachers of evolution are often motivated, not by the facts, but by “their own desires”—perhaps a desire to be accepted by a scientific community in which evolution is orthodox doctrine. Professor of biochemistry Michael Behe, who has spent most of his life studying the complex internal functions of living cells, explained that those who teach the evolution of cell structure have no basis for their claims. Could evolution occur at this tiny, molecular level? “Molecular evolution is not based on scientific authority,” he wrote. “There is no publication in the scientific literature—in prestigious journals, specialty journals, or books—that describes how molecular evolution of any real, complex, biochemical system either did occur or even might have occurred. . . . The assertion of Darwinian molecular evolution is merely bluster.”

    Notice what the article suggests? That scientist that believe in Evolution are just trying to fit in. Now they give an example of a scientist that don't. Yet Behe is talking about molecular evolution. But he does believe in common descent evolution, that other species evolve from other species, and that humans have a common descent with apes!!! He's just arguing molecular evolution, he believes there was an intelligent design there.

  • besty

    does anyone know if all the misquotes in the new brochure have been compiled somewhere online?

  • Leolaia

    The way the Society uses that quote, it implies that there is no strong evidence that these "extinct creatures" are our relatives at all. It is clear in reading the quote in context that it concerns the lack of evidence, from the sparse corpus of endocasts, in basing a diachronic reconstruction of interrelationships between the specimens on this evidence alone. To illustrate the difference, consider a hypothetical archaeological dig in Egypt in the tomb complex of a famous pharaoh. This pharaoh in our analogy corresponds to H. sapiens, us. The archaeologists find the remains of this pharaoh but also many other mummies of others in the necropolis. They do DNA testing and discover that everyone buried there are related genetically; they all have famalial relationships. But without further testing, it is not known what the family tree relations are; it is not known who is the father, mother, and son of whom, who is an uncle or aunt of whom, or even which generation a mummy belongs to. Now an admission by the archaeologist that he/she is unable to determine what relationships these mummies have with the pharaoh is NOT an admission that there is little evidence that these individuals are not related to the pharaoh at all.

    There are no other "extinct creatures" that as a group resemble so closely "us". This is the fact that the Society dances around here. The endocasts show that these "extinct creatures" have brains that are much more human-like than the brains of monkeys and apes. And these similarities include features and associated abilities that are supposedly uniquely human. Thus the significance of the asymmetries corresponding to the Broca's and Wernicke's areas which are critical to speech in humans. If the brains of H. habilis and H. erectus had neural specializations not found in apes and chimpanzees (or found in the genus Australopithecus), it would indicate that these "extinct creatures" are neurologically closer to humans in structures relevant to a quintessentially human ability, language.

  • cantleave

    Bohm - Thank You for posting this.

  • bohm

    Thanks for the replies and kind words!

    Besty: Yah, its allmost a pity there is no line-for-line debunking yet

    Leolaia: Excellent illustration! Your totally right. These details are never mentioned, only the same old false controversies which are brushed up with new quotes and presented as cutting-edge research.

    The only really new thing in brochure seem to be a bat. And they only get that half-right.

Share this