by DS211 28 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
Two things the WTS. does when speaking about evolutionary biology, one is their obvious abstract ignorance
about the subject, which is apparent, but then again the education level of the GB members has never been
known to be academic and two their intellectual dishonesty in taking curtailed bit of information from somewhere to
support their position, leaving out much of what was really is being presented.
Its called bias and selective fact mining and the WTS does it well.
Hidden in the footnotes is the disclaimer that all the scientists quoted in the article accept evolution.
99.99% of JWs will miss this fact.
Arguments about the significance of particular fossils or the relative importance of mechanisms of evolution or the pace of evolution go on constantly.
These idiots quote-mine out of context to make scientists sound like they agree with their wilfully ignorant creationism.
They never address the actual evidence.
Henry Gee does not suggest that the theory of evolution is wrong. His comments are made to show the limits of what can be learned from the fossil record.
Malcolm S. Gordon supports the teaching of evolution.
It should be noted that neither the New Scientist article nor Bapteste nor Rose mean to suggest that the theory of evolution is wrong.
Note: None of the researchers quoted in this box believe in the Bible’s teaching of creation. All accept the teaching of evolution.
“The faces of earlier human ancestors cannot be objectively constructed or tested.” He says that attempts to do so based on modern apes “are likely to be heavily biased, grossly inaccurate, and invalid.” His conclusion? “Any facial ‘reconstructions’ of earlier hominids are likely to be misleading.” 47
This is coming from the guys that brought you white, beardless jesus.
I am sure that there are exaggerations on both sides, espescially when money/funding is involved.
I personally see no reason why life forms could not have been created according to their kinds by a greater intelligence. From there, they can evolve [by definition] to survive. There is even speculation that right now, Killer Whales in certain areas have evolved considerably. They have different languages, different hunting patterns and prey. All of this because of isolation from other pods. Is this speciation? That has not been proven. I guess you could capture some and try and mate them. I would bet that they procreate, and that their offspring could also procreate. These Orca are similar to humans isolated from one another. We are still human, they are still Orca. No speciation there, IMO.
I know that I have never seen convincing proof of an intermediate form. I am sure that certain creatures could be called an intermediate form, but is that proven? Is the Duck-billed platypus the intermediate form of reptile to mammal, to bird? Not IMO. Although I have read different views. I think the Platypus is it's own animal that has adapted to it's enviroment, nothing more.
Also, saying that we all have the same basic design is not proof of anything except design, IMHO. The Bible says nothing too specific about life before humans, other than mentioning "kinds" being created. How many original kinds were there? How long did they exist? Was it millions of years, billions? Nothing about Dinosaurs either. The bible is only concerned with Man and his fall. Why even bring it into the picture? Aren't all these brochures from religions being printed mainly because they screwed up by making comments in the first place? Now they are back-tracking to appear progressive and scientific.
Why can't the GB say, " How exactly was life formed? We simply do not know. The scriptures are silent on the matter. We believe that God's word teaches that life was created. Still, the specifics are not known, as the Bible is not a scientific text book. Our time would be better spent treating our fellow man with love, rather than debating scientific matters with God's word." I guess that wouldn't print too many magazines. Then again, science magazine would not do too well either, if they said, " We don't really know too much." You have to give the people what they want, and tell them what they want to hear. The people want authoritative answers given to them, so that they can watch 'Dancing with the Stars' in peace.
DD
There might be some speculation involved in reconstructing the length of Mrs Ples' eyelashes but its safe to say she was no Keira Knightley.
I personally see no reason why life forms could not have been created according to their kinds by a greater intelligence.
The genetic evidence conclusively says otherwise
I know that I have never seen convincing proof of an intermediate form.
" conclusively says "
That's really saying something.
DD
Yes it is beyond all reasonable doubt.
Every living thing descended from a common ancestor...
The evidence is overwhelming. Many details remain to be discovered especially about the earliest ancestors.
"fixed limits" on Biblical kinds? Really? How easy would it be to take a trip to Australia and casually observe that this is nonsense?
metatron
how about polar bears and penguins? dont they live in complete opposite places? Bet you wont find any ancient penguins or polar bears in the middle east eh? In Turkey? Nope...
