August 2015 Awake! FML

InjusticeSystem

Hello Everyone,

They're at it again. I'm gonna have to stop reading this shit just for my own sanity and the survival of my computer.

August 2015 Awake!

Can we please destroy this box that they keep publishing with some actual facts? They can't use the old, "it's just a theory" anymore, now it's "nope, it's not even a theory. Nope, not a hypothesis either. Nah, it doesn't really exist actually." ARE YOU KIDDING ME?

Is Evolution a Scientific Theory?
What qualifies a theory as a scientific theory? According to theEncyclopedia of Scientific Principles, Laws, and Theories, a scientific theory, such as Albert Einstein’s theory of gravity, must
Be observable
Be reproducible by controlled experiments
Make accurate predictions
In that light, where does evolution stand? * Its operation cannot be observed. It cannot be reproduced. And it cannot make accurate predictions. Can evolution even be considered a scientific hypothesis? The same encyclopedia defines a hypothesis as “a more tentative observation of facts [than a theory],” yet lends itself “to deductions that can be experimentally tested.”

DesirousOfChange

This is basically a reply to Richard Dawkin's statements in his book, "The Greatest Show on Earth" where he defines both terms (theory & hypothesis) and says that evolution is not a "theory" any more than gravity is a theory.

WTS has trouble with some scientific facts. You'll recall that at the Reg Convention they said that the establishment of Christ's Kingdom in 1914 had more evidence than gravity. (And here all along I thought it was a theory.)

Doc

Simon

They're using a very strict definition of "scientific theory" that applies more to physics. There are some things that simply can't be observed or reproduced in a lab - a start going super-nova for example.

When it comes to evolution we can't reproduce it because it is by definition something that happens over millennia but we can observe the evidence of it having happened in the fossil record and we see recent evidence in adaptation of species as Darwin observed on the Galapagos Islands.

The reason it exists is that someone took the trouble to observe and to think about what the evidence was showing them, not to read, believe and then warp everything they saw to fit some pre-conceived superstitious notions.

Of course they have no evidence for their own beliefs whatsoever. When it comes to religious belief suddenly no proof is sufficient.

JakeM2012

"Its operation cannot be observed. It cannot be reproduced. And it cannot make accurate predictions. Can evolution even be considered a scientific hypothesis? The same encyclopedia defines a hypothesis as “a more tentative observation of facts [than a theory],” yet lends itself “to deductions that can be experimentally tested.”"

Similar to the unobservable enthronement of Jesus in 1914, or his unobservable second return in 1919 to appoint a Faithful and Discreet Publishing House to be his sole printing channel to mankind. Or the unobservable "undeniable truth" that in 1925 the end of the world would happen and the holy's would be resurrected, as stated in the "Millions Now Living will Never Die" by J.F. Rutherford. Similar to the disconnect in 1995 from a generation's length, or that in 2009 that Jesus talked about an "overlapping generation"?

Wow, I just don't believe how anyone could believe in a scientific hypothesis, can you?

Simon

You'll recall that at the Reg Convention they said that the establishment of Christ's Kingdom in 1914 had more evidence than gravity.

LOL, reminds me of one of the books where they list things that prove Jesus came in 1914 (or 1874 as it was then). It was a list of 50 random and bizarre things including:

Barbed wire. Typewriters (whatever happened to those?!?) and other such nonsense.

Anyone know the book I'm talking about? Around 1922 / 25'ish

OneEyedJoe

Simon - I don't understand your concession that evolution can't be reproduced. It can, and has been reproduced. Obviously no one has gotten a line of chimps to eventually give birth to a human, but there have been plenty of demonstrations that bacteria evolved to better exploit the resources in their environment. That is evolution and it's been reproduced in a controlled laboratory environment. Since we can reproduce it, it's obviously observable.

It also has made numerous predictions that have been accurate. Darwin himself predicted the existence of a moth with a super long tongue based on his observation of a flower that had an extremely long tube leading to it's nectar. This prediction was later found to be true. There have also been lots of predictions in the areas of genetics, embryology, paleontology, psychology and other fields that have been shown to be accurate.

It's funny that even a cursory look at their argument is all that's needed for it to fall apart. Also, by their criteria God doesn't even qualify as a theory...

InjusticeSystem

Undeniable by Bill Nye.

The Greatest Show on Earth by Richard Dawkins.

Amazing scientific truths. Their logic (and the experimental evidence, observation, and reasoning of all good scientists) is:

Undeniable.

Image result for creationist memes

nicolaou

If you don't think evolution is real and observable within your own lifetime try taking 20 year old antibiotics next time you get ill.

They'd have worked fine for the 1995 version of a given bacteria but will be almost useless for the 2015 version that it has subsequently evolved into.

Oubliette

I'm a little confused by the expression "Albert Einstein’s theory of gravity."

Modern theories of gravitation are generally associated with Isaac Newton, whereas, Einstein is more widely known for his ideas on relativity. Certainly, Einstein's work related to gravity, but to use this expression with its unusual association and not have any explanation for its use just seems odd.

I suppose that's what happens when WT writers write about things they don't really understand. Maybe they fall into the category of people that think if you use Einstein's name in a sentence it makes you appear intelligent. I'm surprised they didn't also refer to "quantum mechanics" while they were at it!

That being said, you may appreciate that in a largely favorable review of the work cited, the Encyclopedia of Scientific Principles, Laws, and Theories by Robert E. Krebs, reviewers Adam M. Kiefer and Kevin Drace pointed out a flaw in this work, one that is particular relevant to the point under discussion. They comment that this second edition continues the "erroneous presentation of theories being built from laws."

Interesting! I bet the WT writer that lifted these blurbs in a failed attempt to appear smart wasn't aware of that!

pronomono

Simon, I think this is what you're looking for, courtesy of JWFacts.

"But mention is made of some of those things that have come to light since 1874, as a further evidence of the Lord's presence since that date, as follows: Adding machines, aeroplanes, aluminium, antiseptic surgery, artificial dyes, automatic couplers, automobiles, barbed wire, bicycles, carborundum, cash registers, celluloid, cream separators, disc plows, electric railways, electric welding, elevators, escalators, fireless cookers, gas engines, harvesting machines, illuminating gas, induction motors, linotypes, monotypes, motion pictures, pasteurization, radium, railway signals, Roentgen rays, skyscrapers, smokeless powder, submarines, subways, talking machines, telephones, television, typewriters, vacuum cleaners, wireless telegraphy and wireless telephony." Creation 1927 2,175,000 ed. p.297

We can add to this list.... smartphones, electric cars, self-driving cars, YouTube, plasma televisions, electronic toll booths, satellite tv, rechargeable lithium batteries, doppler radar, bluetooth, GPS, digital cameras, DNA profiling, broadband internet, the world wide web, and online apostates. So much proof through worldly innovations...

August 2015 Awake! FML

Is Evolution a Scientific Theory?

Share this