Mathematically Measuring Evolution.

by towerwatchman 205 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • David_Jay
    David_Jay

    Towerwatchman,

    A little more on your liberal use of the expression "Judeo-Christian."

    Jews find the expression hurtful because that label assumes, at the expense of authentic Jewish custom and practice, that Jews and Christians believe in and value the same things.

    Unless you know for sure that what you're speaking of represents the practices, views, culture, theology, etc. of my people, it is unfair and misleading to label it as "Judeo-Christian."

    Evolution is widely accepted by Jews across the world. We have no reason to claim that Adonai did not create life by use of evolution. Since you don't share this view of God, it would be appreciated if you would be more accurate on the use of the label "Judeo-Christian." Do keep in mind too that it can even be seen as anti-Semitic and thus very hurtful to some Jews.

  • towerwatchman
    towerwatchman

    To David_Jay

    From antiquity Jews have viewed the creation account in Genesis as allegory. It is based on the tableau paradigm used to describe the building of the Tabernacle, Solomon's Temple, and Ezekiel's Temple. Because of this the Genesis account is not literal. The first chapter of Genesis is considered the last section of Torah to be composed, added after our return from Babylon.

    In Genesis day is interpreted from [yowm /yome/] which translates as “day” 2008 times, “time” 64 times, “chronicles ” 37 times, “daily” 32 times, “ever” 17 times, “year” 14 times, “continually” 10 times, “when” 10 times, “as” 10 times, “while” eight times, “full always” four times, “whole” four times, “alway” four times, and translated miscellaneously 44 times. The semantic range of a word is all the possible meanings of that word in the given language. Yome’s semantic range is restricted to only five meanings. 1.a period of light in a day night cycle, 2. a period of twenty four hours 3. a general or vague concept of time. 4. a specific point of time 5. a period of a year.

    The fallacy in Day Age lies in the supposition that the meaning of “yome” in the context of Genesis is much broader than Genesis allows and attempts to explain into Genesis a different meaning from its semantic range. To properly interpret the meaning of a word, the meaning must be determined by how it is used in the specific context, not by possible meanings in unrelated contexts. It should be noted that when yome is used for a period of time it is heavily modified by other time indicators such as the word for year or month.

    And even in those cases, it is that others time unit word that gives its length of duration, not the use of yome.

    What is ignored is the interesting pattern yome has in Genesis 1 in the original language, which is not reflected in English translations. The first day has a cardinal number [one] with a definite article, “the” others have ordinal numbers [second, third, fourth]. Genesis 1:5 begins the cycle of the day, with the creation of day and night. Evening is the transition from light/day to darkness/ night and morning is the transition from darkness/night to light/day. Having an evening and a morning amounts to having one full day. Hence, the following equation is what Genesis 1:5 expresses, 1 evening + 1 morning = one day. Therefore, by using a most unusual grammatical construction, Genesis 1:5 is defining what a day is, a simple 24 hour period.

    Since I don't recognize Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah or as any type of authrority, you are still failing to answer my question on how you know you are right about what you claim regarding God.

    You are basically asking me how I know that the Genesis account is literal and true. I gave you my answer. Whether you recognize Jesus or not that is irrelevant. My second answer which you seem to ignore is based on the sciences.

    My point is that you are not greater than the imperfect and uninspired Governing Body, are you? Claiming you are an exJW isn't a gold star on your resume. It just tells others that you probably weren't smart enough to avoid joining a cult. If you weren't right about your choice to become a JW, how do you know you are correct now? Just because you're an exJW now doesn't mean you are suddenly right about all you currently believe, including evolution. You need more than what you're saying because people who joined cults don't have a great track record when it comes to being right about what they claim is true. I believe your sincerity that you are so sure now about what you're saying, but wasn't that also true when you used to be a JW too? In other words, don't tell me how you know you're right. Tell me how you know you can't possibly be wrong. What are your fail-safes? Demonstrate how your conviction about evolution cannot possibly be a holdover from Watchtower indoctrination. I might be more willing to accept your statements once you do that.

    Tell me did you make a conscious decision to join the WTS or where you raised in it. I was raised in it and then late in my teens left. Such insulting generalizations. And people wonder why sometimes I become mean. I believe in respecting everyone regardless. Even when discussing over the internet, give the same amount of respect as if the person is sitting next to me. I am confident that if I was discussing the topics face to face with these insulting posters, 99% of the insults would have been deferred.

    And lastly, just because I didn't print out the entire title to "Origin" doesn't mean I was speaking about a different book. Your reply however does suggest you may get some type of satisfaction in being unkind. I hope I am wrong about that. I am sure you didn't mean to come across that way. Christians generally try to be nice, unless I am mistaken about that too and you claim to be neither.

    One way I know someone has not read Darwin is by asking the for the complete title.

    As to Judeo- Christian it is simple. Christians believe in the God of what we call the Old Testament. Genesis to Malachi. Only a self centered individual would consider that Judeo-Christian is some attempt to harmonize both world view.

    Evolution is widely accepted by Jews across the world. We have no reason to claim that Adonai did not create life by use of evolution.

    Care to give scriptural proof from the Hebrew Scriptures that evolution is true.

  • shepherdless
    shepherdless
    Towerwatchman: Note nothing I have posted as evidence is supported by the Judeo Christian belief in a supernatural intelligent designer.

    Most Christians do NOT believe in a "supernatural intelligent designer". From what David Jay says, it appears Jews don't either. Most Christians accept (and are often even taught) that Genesis should not be read literally, and that evolution is a fact.

    Most of the Christians that do believe in a "supernatural intelligent designer" come from fundamentalist Christian sects (such as JWism) that have arisen in the last couple of hundred years in USA.

  • towerwatchman
    towerwatchman

    To Finklestein

    To be intellectually honest there are indeed some weak spots on molecular biology that needs further conformation but that doesn't dismiss all other acquired information that supports biological evolution as definable concept or science.

    We can be here forever discussing evolution. What settles the argument? The closes point to the creation of life. So the question becomes not what is the origin of life but the origin of biological information. Bring cause and effect into the equation. If an effect has only one known cause then the presence of the effect is enough to support the presence of the cause. The only known cause of information is intelligence.

  • towerwatchman
    towerwatchman

    To shepherdless

    Most Christians do NOT believe in a "supernatural intelligent designer".

    That is a sweeping generalization. I can accept some, but not most.

    From what David Jay says, it appears Jews don't either.

    Jew could be either nationality or religion. The most we have here is his opinion.

    Most Christians accept (and are often even taught) that Genesis should not be read literally, and that evolution is a fact.

    Christians are taught evolution because it is required in school. The majority of Christian I know and have known do not believe in evolution.

    Most of the Christians that do believe in a "supernatural intelligent designer" come from fundamentalist Christian sects (such as JWism) that have arisen in the last couple of hundred years in USA.

    From the Early Church Fathers to the Roman Catholic Church to the different denominations that arose from the Protestant movement, Genesis was taught as literal. Evolution did not come into the equation till after Darwin.

  • Rainbow_Troll
    Rainbow_Troll
    If evolution is true then the existence of cytochrome C in ‘higher forms’ is the result from evolving from a common ancestor. We would expect to see a logical progression in distance, measurable in percentage of difference as we move up the hierarchy of evolution. As we progress along the presumed evolutionary path from single cell organisms, to multi cell, fish, amphibians, reptiles, mammals to humans we should see the changes in cytochrome C accumulate.

    So you think you have demolished the entire theory of evolution over a single protein? Your flaccid argument is typical of creationists: obsess over a single anomaly while totally ignoring the weight of fossil and genetic evidence.

    If you really wanted to keep God in the picture then, instead of attacking a theory as well supported as evolution, you should target Materialism's weakest conjecture: that nonliving molecules can somehow spontaneously organize themselves into self-replicating nucleotides

  • shepherdless
    shepherdless

    Towerwatchman, you say you cant accept most Christians do not believe in a "supernatural intelligent designer"


    Just as an example: I was brought up in a strict Catholic family, and went entirely to Catholic schools, taught by a mix if priests, nuns and secular teachers (mostly practising Catholics). (I have never been a JW - I found myself married to one.) I can specifically remember the point being made at school many times that Genesis should not be read literally. I remember one Jesuit priest saying it was "childish" (exact word) to think it literally occurred.

    From talking to people and a bit of research, I can not identify ANY mainstream Christian religion that rejects evolution. The only ones I can identify that do reject evolution, are the fundamentalist ones, mostly from the USA.

    I do agree, however, that pre-Darwin or thereabouts, most Christians were creationists.

    The majority of Christian I know and have known do not believe in evolution.

    You were probably born in USA, or at least exposed to a fundamentalist US religion from a young age. You were almost certainly indoctrinated with the "creation story" right from when you were a little baby. Your entire terms of reference for how you view the world around you, stems from that indoctrination. You seek evidence to support your viewpoint (aka confirmation bias). You are good at debating, and seek further comfort by projecting your views on others and shouting them down if they disagree.

    How close am I?

  • Coded Logic
    Coded Logic
    ‘… we are not even authorized to consider the exceptional case of Archaeopteryx as a true link. By link, we mean a necessary stage of transition between classes such as reptiles and birds, or between smaller groups. An animal displaying characters belonging to two different groups cannot be treated as a true link as long as the intermediary stages have not been found, and as long as the mechanism of transition remains unknown.’ [Human Destiny] Evolutionist Lecomte du Noüy


    Hahaha, you're citing a quote from the 1800s as being authoritative on the topic? Really?

    .

    Towerwatchman,

    Why don't you read the finding of experts in the field of archaeology, taxonomy, and stratigraphy instead of the empty assertions a someone who was not an expert in the field and never researched Archaeopteryx?

    Why don't you read what those who actually have taken the time to do their due diligence (research, analysis, peer review, and publication) have to say instead of just cherry picking quotes that tickle your ears?

    Here's what real science on Acheopteryx actually looks like:

    https://bioloskiblog.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/nature2013godefroit.pdf

    http://www.senckenberg.de/files/content/forschung/abteilung/terrzool/ornithologie/archaeopteryx.pdf

    http://hs.umt.edu/dbs/flightlab/EvolutionofAvianFlightMusclesandConstraintsonPerformance.pdf


  • David_Jay
    David_Jay

    Towerwatchman,

    This has nothing to do with the Jewish understanding of Genesis:

    In Genesis day is interpreted from [yowm /yome/] which translates as “day” 2008 times, “time” 64 times, “chronicles ” 37 times, “daily” 32 times, “ever” 17 times, “year” 14 times, “continually” 10 times, “when” 10 times, “as” 10 times, “while” eight times, “full always” four times, “whole” four times, “alway” four times, and translated miscellaneously 44 times. The semantic range of a word is all the possible meanings of that word in the given language. Yome’s semantic range is restricted to only five meanings. 1.a period of light in a day night cycle, 2. a period of twenty four hours 3. a general or vague concept of time. 4. a specific point of time 5. a period of a year.

    Etc.

    I read from this part of Genesis in Hebrew every Shabbat during Kiddush. I read and speak in Hebrew daily and been speaking it since childhood. None of what you write is correct. You don't speak Biblical Hebrew, do you? I'm Israeli, and I speak several Jewish dialects along with Hebrew.

    Jew could be either nationality or religion. The most we have here is his opinion.

    I am both a Jew by heritage, from Judean and Cohen (Levitical) stock. It is not my opinion that Jews in general accept evolution. Note the official pew research center information on this at http://www.pewforum.org/2009/02/04/religious-groups-views-on-evolution/.

    So it is not an opinion after all. I'll bet you can't admit you were obviously wrong here. And since you were wrong here, where else?

    Only a self centered individual would consider that Judeo-Christian is some attempt to harmonize both world view.

    Note that this is not a self-centered issue I raised. It is definitely one that bothers almost all Jews:

    http://washingtonjewishweek.com/34907/judeo-christian-values/news/national-news/

    http://www.jewishpress.com/blogs/yoris-news-clips/theres-no-such-thing-as-judeo-christian-values/2013/12/26/

    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/dispatches/2014/12/31/the-absurdity-of-the-phrase-judeo-christian/

    Again you are wrong and uneducated about this. And if you were wrong here, where else in your comments?

    Care to give scriptural proof from the Hebrew Scriptures that evolution is true.

    All educated people know that Jews don't follow the JW pattern of providing "scriptural proof" for their convictions.

    Our religion is not based on the Jewish Bible or Tanakh (we don't call it the "Hebrew Scriptures" ). The "proof text" system was developed by Marcion of Sinope, a Christian heretic of the 2nd century. JWs and other Christians who are "Bible-based" revived Marcionism and it's "prove it from the Scriptures" approach. Jews don't follow Marcion, a Gnostic.

    Unlike the religion of Bible-based Christians, Judaism isn't based on Scripture. We compose Scripture based on our religion. Our religion grows and evolves as history and science does. So we are not stuck reading the Bible as if we have to still live in the past or use it to provide "scriptural proof" of our beliefs like the heretic Marcion.

    I was raised in it and then late in my teens left. Such insulting generalizations. And people wonder why sometimes I become mean.

    And regardless if you were raised in it or not, if you are really an exJW then that means you were once baptized as one. I know a lot of people raised in the JW religion who don't ever join. But if you did, then you still joined a cult. If not, then you lied about being an exJW.

    But you weren't lying about being mean. You are that.

    You are acting just like a forum flamer, an Internet troll who because they fail to make it in the real world have to put on a display on the Internet. I just proved several of your points wrong, could probably spend more time doing the same, but like most people like you, you probably don't have the humility to admit you don't know what you speak of. You will just keep on attempting to prove you are right and everyone else wrong.

    Don't act like you are a waste of time and space. That's what you're doing. I know there should probably be a decent human being in you somewhere, but obviously you don't care to let that decency come to the top. I won't waste my time on people who act like you have been acting here. What a shame.

    And people wonder why sometimes I become mean.

    I don't wonder why. Jesus himself said good trees don't produce bad fruit and bad trees can't produce good. Your being mean is your fruit. It says a lot about the kind of tree you really are. I just hope you don't stay this mean, unbearable person for the rest of your life. I would rather surround myself with JWs than you with your behavior you're displaying right now.

  • WhatshallIcallmyself
    WhatshallIcallmyself

    "Thanks for all that information on dating rocks, Please note, we are not discussing geology, but Cytochrome c. In this discussion the age of rocks is irrelevant" - TWM

    It is very relevant to this discussion because you said:

    "What this points to is that all living creatures appeared on the fossil record at about the same time."

    You suggest that Cytochrome c infers all living creatures appeared at the same time (I assume in an attempt to justify a belief in the genesis creation account) yet the geology conclusively shows this is wrong. So yes, showing you how other branches of science contradict this thought of yours is relevant.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit