Cognitive Dissonace on full display at JWtalk over evolution research

by Sanchy 59 Replies latest jw friends

  • Doubter

    Morph - “they never claimed at all that god kept him alive”.

    Here they did:

    This further alludes to it God intervening:

    But you did say you never read it, so couldn’t have known about these references.

  • Betheliesalot

    Would like to see what he would write if he went to the Perot Museum in Dallas and saw all the dinosaurs and actually feel them. His head would explode.

  • Sanchy

    Here are some of the responses thus far:

    From ScholarJW: The beauty of our publications especially those that deal with Evolution is the simplicity of the argument and its presentation and that is what you need in good science is that it should and must be Simple-easily understood by the 'man/woman' in the street. Most if not all modern-day textbooks on Evolution abound with complex mathematics/statistics designed to prove Evolution and mystify the laymen.

    So science needs to be easily understood or else it isn't true?

    The OP responded: I have had similar feelings in my long past when trying to reason from the scriptures with a Seventh Day Adventist. My inexperience led me and a fellow young pioneer, to exhaust our fund of scriptures only to realise later (after that empty feeling of frustration) that he was never going to be reasonable and accept the scriptures alone. Those feeling are not nice.

    Ironic coming from someone that just confessed that he is "never going to be reasonable and accept" the evidence for evolution.

    EccentricM wrote: He (Darwin) made the huge assumption adaptations lead to macro species changes and then made the guess that all things came from one cell and each species along the way birthed the other. When later fossil research was done, they found layers, and could piece together the order of apperance of life, but no mid-species transitions were ever found, only full species. As such they made the erronous claim that "certain species were the missing links"(?) despite having no evidence that was even the case, but said it was anyway.
    Later with genetics they found.. oh, all life shares DNA, and so they say "aha, that confirms it, it's all true". What they did not consider is that we are all simply made.. from the same materials, hence, DNA (ingrediants) being the same, but no "lineage" like in direct human ancestry has ever been detected or studied. 
    If you bring up the current state of "statis of evolution" as well as living fossils as an argument, they shall say "not all life forms evolve if they don’t need to, hence why we have “living fossils”, life forms that have not changed at all for billions of years, and we have many of them". This idea I think seems to contradict evolution. Why? Because something does not change if it does not need to, it only adapts to it’s needs to survive.

    So… why evolve in the first place? Was the first micro-organism in danger? Could it not survive in the sea by staying at it was? Evolving means to adapt and change in accordance to one’s enviroment, but if all life came from a single cell, which includes said enviroment, that means there was nothing to adapt or respond to in the first place, which should incur stasis.
    Pjdriver wrote: how does something with no intelligent maker make extremely complex changes because it “needs” to? Who told it it needs to? How does it know it needs to?

    Anyone wanna take a stab at answering?

  • Vidiot

    The one spot in the OP quote that stuck out the most to me (at the end)...

    "...I have been warned...."?


    It's like these nitwits don't even realize they're making themselves look nuts.

    Or are we being Poe's-Lawed?

  • _Morpheus

    Your second reference is actually the money quote where they do indeed claim, “god did it”.

    As i said originally, “citation needed”. You have provided such and so i recant my preivious remark related to jonah and his survival. It dosent make it less stupid, but you were correct in your statment as to the wt explanation.

    As an aside, my god how dumbed down is that writing???? For thor sake i remember a time when the writing was well constructed and at a highschool senior level. That crap is 6th grade at best. Its insulting. Its the written equivalent of stephen lett talking.

  • Doubter

    Anyone of literally any educational level can grasp the material. Why alienate anyone? Why should they appeal only to people of a certain educational level?

    You write according to your target audience. Their audience is literally any and everyone.

  • Doubter


  • sir82

    Anyone of literally any educational level can grasp the material. Why alienate anyone?

    Why should they appeal only to people of a certain educational level?

    Simple concepts for simpletons.

    Yep, that pretty much sums up the mission statement of the current WTS "writing" department.

  • Doubter


  • _Morpheus

    Because, as an adult, it makes me feel as if im being spoken down to.. your results may vary, but i would never accept this from a news paper, a web site, a blog from any source that wanted to be taken seriously.

Share this