Challenge to Creationists

by cofty 147 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  DJS

  @shepherless: "Actually, the scientific method starts with an observation, not a postulation. Step 2 is coming up with as many hypotheses as possible. Step 3 is the process of elimination hypotheses by testing and further observation, etc.

  I mention that, because if you start with one "postulation", then you are vulnerable to carrying out an exercise in confirmation bias, not the scientific method, because (human nature being what it is) you tend to just gather the evidence in support of your postulation, and you ignore the rest."

  Thank you and well stated. When I conducted my first research project paper as part of a semester long class in my undergrad, our profs configured the class in the same manner as a PhD dissertation. It was critical to start with a blank slate to avoid bias. The one thing they stressed was to start your research with a question, such as "what are the effects of intelligence on religiosity?"

  The possibilities include: no impact, undetermined, a negative impact, or a positive impact. If you start your research under the premise that intelligence has a negative influence on religiosity, for example, then the results may be biased. Once completed and presented for review, the question becomes a statement: "The Effects of Intelligence on Religiosity."

  That's what slays me when Perry and others post 'research' from x-tian apologists who started their project with the premise that we live on a young earth or that god created everything. It isn't research; it is confirmation bias of the worst kind, and it will never be viewed seriously by the scientific community.
  
  
  
• 

  KateWild

  You already know that you are being dishonest. I have explained the answer to your question about homochirality in considerable detail more than once and referred you to the work of a Japanese scientist who solved the puzzle. It is a common tactic of creationists to ignore an answer, wait a few weeks and then post the same objection as if it had not been answered. - Cofty

  I know in my heart I am not being dishonest. I am a very honest person with integrity. Your argument is not conclusive or satisfying. Just because you are happy with your conclusions doesn't mean we all are. I don't consider myself a creationist either. I am not ignoring your answer just saying you're wrong in your perception of an autocatalyst. But the point is we are at a stalemate situation and I agree there are different interpretations of the scientific facts and there is no definite conclusion either way.

  You're just too stubborn and conceited to admit it.

  Kate xx
• 

  Simon

  I was disagreeing with your point that the purpose of this forum is to discuss religion. The purpose is support, friendship and tolerance for exJWs, no matter where they are in their journey since leaving the cult, according to Simon's intro.

  Given that the "JW" part is a pretty big factor, then any discussion of topics that touch on religion in any way is of course valid. In fact, we have subject areas for most things totally unrelated to religion so anything goes - it's only if someone tries to subvert the forum to be about one completely unrelated topic that there would be an issue.
  
• 

  Vidqun

  Cofty, I don't understand why you want to go that way. Why don't you just respond to what is there. You can have all the time in the world.

  I view the BBC debates as a good example of debating. On the one side you have a group with a premise. On the other side you have a group opposing the premise. The you have a moderator(s) to keep the playing fields even. I realize this is not the BBC, but an Internet Forum to assist recovering ex-JWs, so things should theoretically be relaxed and informal.

  Perhaps do a thread with somebody else as an example, then we will all know what you want and in what format you want it. Or is it that you have a hidden agenda, to ridicule those that have a contrary view?
• 

  LisaRose

  To those of you who think the forum should not discuss evolution, please reconsider. Belief in creationism is a core teaching of the Jehovah's Witnesses. They selectively quote statements by scientists to alter their original meaning and engage in other intellectually dishonest practices to prop up this belief. If you have figured out that the Watchtower was wrong and lied about representing God and teaching bible truths, why would not at least consider that they were wrong about evolution as well? Why are you uncomfortable with a simple discussion about it?

  Nobody is forcing you to consider these things, you can simply avoid all evolution topics if that is not your interest, but many JWs and former JWs are interested in it and do want to learn about it. Perry and others who believe in creationism are free to believe what they want, but they cannot expect to post things that are patently untrue and not be challenged on it.

  Cofty has spent a great deal of time to post on the subject. His posts are well researched and well thought out and he thoroughly understands what his subject. I have learned a lot and keep learning new things from him. Perry simply cuts and paste things he finds elsewhere. He doesn't really understand what he is cutting and pasting and can never defend it when challenged. He simply ignores it, waits a while and posts it again in a new thread. It is the worst form of intellectual laziness, Cofty is right to call him out for it.

  Instead of getting upset that there is a discussion of evolution, why not read one of the many topics that Cofty has posted in his series on evolution? They are usually short and easy to understand. Why would you not at least consider the possibility that evolution could be true?
• 

  Xanthippe

  any discussion of topics that touch on religion in any way is of course valid. In fact, we have subject areas for most things totally unrelated to religion so anything goes

  Thanks for clarifying that Simon.
  
  
• 

  Anders Andersen

  Well said LisaRose.

  I'll add to that that in my case, finding out that the JW literature on evolution/creation is utterly dishonest, full of fallacies and completely fails to make a case for creation was instrumental in me finding out TTATT and leaving the religion.

  If God's own ssupposed pokesmen cannot get the interpretation of the first chapter of the Bible right, they're not very trustworthy....

  And for all the creationists out there: ever wonder why all you do is criticized evolution, but you never present actual evidence for creation?

  Why has nobody taken this perfect chance to shut up Cofty, who taunts your Creator?

  Why is it that you can only come up with thoughts and conjectures, while thousands of exhibits in musea, millions of scientific papers and loads of evidence can be shown to support the theory of evolution?
• 

  cofty

  Thank you Lisa Rose and Anders Anderson.

  Or is it that you have a hidden agenda, to ridicule those that have a contrary view? - Vidqun

  Vidqun all I ever get from creationists is insults. I NEVER retaliate. In 9 years and 18K posts I have never had a creationist engage in an actual conversation.

  Just this morning TheLiberator posted the following...

  "EVOLUTIONIST'S EYES ARE BROWN BECAUSE THEY ARE FULL OF CRAP". And that got 3 Likes.

  In his usual dishonest style Perry posted a link to an article called "44 Reasons Why Evolution is False". He thinks this is an adequate response to 37 carefully researched threads presenting the evidence for the fact of evolution.

  I challenged him to pick one of his "44 reasons" and present it in his own words and I would refute it with evidence. The only proviso was that I would then present one piece of evidence for evolution and he would agree to challenge it.

  It was a perfectly reasonable challenge. I also sent him two PMs explaining the challenge. I have not heard a single word from him in the forum or by PM. Draw your own conclusions.

  So I opened up the challenge to all creationists. There must be at least a dozen who have insulted me on the "Evolution is a Fact" series. This was an opportunity for them to demonstrate that their position is honestly held on the basis of evidence.

  You Vidqun ignored my simple request and began posting copy-paste stuff about the origin of complex eukaryotic cells.

  Even though your topic is closer to abiogenesis than it is to evolution, and even though you are a professional microbiologist and the topic is way outside my comfort zone I accepted your challenge.

  I will give you the chance in a new thread that I will start to make the case against evolution on the basis of the complexity of eukaryotic cells. I accept the responsibility to respond with evidence to show that this is not a reason to reject evolution.

  The only request I make are the following...

  1 - Be reasonably succinct. There are no limits on length but keep it no longer than necessary to make your point.

  2 - Write it up in your own words. nobody wants to read copy-paste, we want to see you explain it.

  3 - Avoid specialist language as far as possible so that it is understandable to the non-scientist. Explain any technical terms that you need to use.

  4 - We can agree on what would be a reasonable time to reply in advance. I am not comfortable with the topic so I would ask for a few days.

  You can refute any answer that I provide of course.

  The second round will simply be the reverse. I will - on the same thread - post an argument for evolution and you will agree to undertake to try to refute it.

  You are the professional scientist and the topic is your speciality. I am a complete amateur. I never insult anybody or ridicule them.

  Do you accept? If not, why not?
• 

  Ucantnome

  I never insult anybody or ridicule them.

  I think telling someone to 'grow a pair' is insulting and you have done that
  
  
• 

  cantleave

  Vidqun....

  As with all evidence for common ancestry and evolution there are many strands of evidence which come together to create a strong case for the emergence of eukaryotes.

  The evidence that supports the theory that eukaryotic cells are the descendants of separate prokaryotic cells that combined by invagination resulting in a symbiotic union rest primarily with their physiology and structure. It specifically centres around physiology and structure of two specific organelles, mitochondria and chloroplasts which are similar in size and morphology to ancient bacterial prokaryotic cells.

  Mitochondria and chloroplasts are clones of pre-existing mitochondria and chloroplasts reproducing by a type of asexual reproduction called binary fission, this a prokaryote bacterial trait and not the eukaryotic method (mitosis). Why would two systems of reproduction occur within a single cell unless these organelles have a different ancestry from the nucleus?

  The membranes of the chloroplasts and mitochondria have different chemistries within their membrane systems. Mitochondria and chloroplasts possess a double membrane the outer membrane corresponds to the membranes found in prokaryotic bacteria whereas the inner membrane’s chemistry is of a different chemical composition very similar to that of eukaryotic bacteria.

  In these organelles the enzymes and inner membrane systems resemble prokaryotic inner membrane systems whereas outer membrane is of similar composition to the plasma membrane, and other organelles such as the endoplasmic reticulum or nuclear membrane of the eukaryote. These chemical mismatches are most readily explained by the theory that prokaryotes were absorbed and formed a symbiotic relationship.

  Finally mitochondria and chloroplasts have their own DNA resembling that of bacterial prokaryotic cells and they also possess their own ribosomes which also resemble bacterial prokaryotic cells: The DNA of mitochondria and chloroplasts is different from that of the eukaryotic cell in which they are found. Both types of organelle include circular, not linear DNA, a characteristic of prokaryotes.