Another Scientist Misquoted - October 2015 Awake - Scientist Response
- The WT articles are becoming more and more worthless. There citations are incorrect.
antes80802 minutes agoThe WT articles are becoming more and more worthless. There citations are incorrect.Absolutely - but who amongst the R&F has any worthwhile books or reads any sources. The WT knows they could print absolute crap and the dubs would lap it up as evidence supporting their agenda. I'm surprised they don't make up quotes, as no one would check the authenticity.Nice find FT :)
- i can't believe i used to trust them and deffend them wether they were wrong :(. When i was still believing this to be the truth and took a peek at the quotes from the magazines on the internet, I saw the misquotes problems. Even then, i was lying to myself to excuse the misquotes stating that "evolutionists are just jealous that creation is true" that to minimalise the war that was going in my head haha. As someone stated earlier you do not need to lie or hide eventhe slightest and smallest bit of information if you preach that YOU have the "answers to life".
I have also written an email after seeing the first post in this thread. This was probably because I learnt lately to check for myself everything I read... after blindly believing for years whatever I read in the JW publications.
Very surprised when I received the reply, and you can see below my question and his reply:
Cota Samuel - "When i was still believing this to be the truth and took a peek at the quotes from the magazines on the internet, I saw the misquote problems."
I never bothered to check (too lazy, and I didn't want to believe that the WTS had been dishonest), but I always half-suspected in the back of my mind.
Cota Samuel - "Even then, i was lying to myself to excuse the misquotes stating that 'evolutionists are just jealous that creation is true' that to minimalise the war that was going in my head."
Hoo boy, that takes me back.
I parroted the "evolutionists' just want to reject the Bible and live sinful, hedonistic lives" thing, but deep down, I knew that was just a sour-grapes explanation.
And once I started learning about biology, the war "going on in my head" really started heating up.
Can you guess which side won?
- Schwartz's contention is that a complex nexus of controller genes and existing genetic variation result in 'newness' not simple favorable environment pressure. He is a leading contributor to the advancement of understanding how evolution works NOT a creationist or someone who in any way dismisses biological evolution. Science is progressive, it would be tragic if a 150 year old scientific theory had not been refined.