by TheStumbler 42 Replies latest watchtower bible
Basically, creationsts (including the WTS) have no other choice but use misquoting, obfuscation, and ad hominum arguments - all "dirty-lawyer" tactics - to try and discredit evolution (which, I might add, is rejected solely for ideologal reasons, rather than evidence)...
...that fact alone should be enough to give anyone pause.
A few weeks before the first video was sent to me, my family member insisted he wasn't a creationist because he believed god 'created' life over 'thousands' of years...of course, I told him that life been around for billions of years not 'thousands' and he was applying his own definition of creationism.
I couldn't resist telling him after he sent me the video that Ppsimmons, the producer of the video, is a 'Young Earth Creationist' organisation with far-right political views. The video was timely because I had recently told him that creationists use the same strategies as climate change deniars (that's when he proudly told me 'he wasn't a creationist) so the PPsimmons video proved my point perfectly.
frustratingly, he seemed reluctant to accept or acknowledge that the PPsimmons video had misrepresented evolution - even though I forwarded my email from the paeleontologist who confirmed he had been misrepresented. I thought because the video wasnt produced by the Watchtower he wouldn't have a problem acknowledging it was intellectually dishonest but that turned out not to be the case.
I'm glad other people enjoyed the second video and saw the absurdity. :)
Apognophus, thanks for the link - ingeresting info.
im working on a reply to the second email. I know there's no point because my JW family members are fully indoctrinated and impervious to contrary facts. But I enjoy debunking stuff (I'm active in the sceptical movement). I think on some level the information I present must cause them to think a little bit. I'll post my comments on the second video when I've finished it. Don't worry, it will be shorter than the first one.
another JW family member asked me a while ago to explain the evidence for evolution 'in my own words' - I've been working on a reply for several months. I'll post it when I've finished because I've aimed it at someone who knows nothing about evolution and holds many misconceptions about evolution and science generally. It might have some useful info for people on here.
I read half of that reply then my brain started hurting.
I'll come back to this for sure. I genuinely think 40+years of indoctrination has short circuited me intellectually, as whatever info I read on evolution doesn't seem to take a hold inside me. I EAGERLY await your response to the other family member, as I think it could benefit me a great deal.
Thanks for posting this, you know you'll be helping hundreds of people like me for as long as this site stays live.
Thanks, Disposable Hero. That means a lot.
I hope to to finish my evolution next week some time. I've tried to not describe the evidence for evolution but explain how and why scientists interpret the evidence. Its not comprehensive but rather focuses on the three or four lines of evidence that personally convinced me evolution is true (I was previously sceptical of evolution because my exposure to JW / creationist propaganda).
Okay, I've done something a but differebt with the Genesis / Relativuty thing. I've written an email describing how other religions use the exact same arguments to hold up a mirror against Christian apologetics. here's my reply;
That video reminds me of this Muslim guy I used to work with in London. He told me the Quaran had been proven as God's word because the it contains accurate scientific knowledge that could not possibly have been known when it was written. He told me the Quaran accurately describes how stars are formed from gaseous nebulas and how matter is made from tiny atoms;
'Then He turned to the heaven when it was smoke...' (Quran, 41:11)
'Surely Allah does not do injustice to the weight of an atom, and if it is a good deed He multiplies it and gives from Himself a great reward.' (Quran, 4:40 Shakir)
Many Muslim apologists believe this scientific foreknowledge in the Quaran must have come from God. What do you make of this? Do you think verses in the Quaran that vaguely reflect scientific knowledge prove the Quaran's divine inspiration? How else would you explain it?
I think it is rather easy. Muslims simply see what they want to see. They are reading meaning into an text that was clearly never intended by the author.
Tellingly, believers in Quaranic scientific foreknowledge have never used this foreknowledge to predict a scientific discovery. Only once a a scientific discovery has been made do believers scan the Quaran looking for a verse that can be inerpreted to have predicted the discovery. And of course, they always find it because the Quaran is full of poetic language and verses so obscurely written that they can easily be interpreted to sound vaguely similar to modern scientific knowledge.
Of course, Muslim apologists who claim scientific foreknowledge in the Quaran completely ignore the many scientific innacuracies in the Quaran. For example, the Quaran describes the sun as moving around the Earth and resting at night.
The scientifically in accurate parts in the Quaran are evidently not meant to be interpreted literally, Muslim apologists insist. Why? Because it's God's perfect word.
The circular reasoning is obvious to the outsider. Muslim apologists insist the Quaran must be God's word because it is scientifically accurate. But they interpret the Quaran so that it is scientifically accurate because they know its God's word. Their interpretation assumes their conclusion and their conclusion is based on their interpretation.
But to Muslim apologists, this reasoning is utterly convincing.
I've never seen that spelling of "Quran" before But yes, I think it's a good approach to take.
It's often spelt Koran but both are valid, I believe.
You wrote "Quaran" above, though. I don't think that's correct. Just pointing that out in case you haven't sent the response already.
Sorry, misunderstood you before. You are right, just looked it up, both (Koran / Quran) are valid transliterstions but it's spelt Quran or Qu'ran.
Thanks - you learn something new every day!
