Professor Rupert Bruce Merrifields work is interesting
Evolutionary establishment tactics
by hooberus 157 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
Shining One
Hi Hooberus,
I have never, ever seen Alan admit he even might be wrong. He's the kind of person that says, "I thought I was wrong once but I made a mistake." All of the insults and arrogance has tripped him up in the past and continues to do so. Thanks for the great link.
Rex -
Midget-Sasquatch
hooberus,
Here is one (from ReMine):
An intelligent designer is necessary for the origin of life from non-life.
This is potentially falsifiable (for example by a demonstration that nautral processes are sufficient to account for life from non-life).Now thats the kind of hypothesis one can work with! I like that example.
I also find it interesting that the subject of that particular hypothesis is in the field of abiogenesis. A field where, for now at least, there's relatively scant concrete information or data on which to test any hypotheses. I dare say thats why there are so many different naturalistic scenarios for the emergence of life, offered up by scientists --- not enough data collected to draw a valid conclusion on them. Yep, alot of properly formed hypotheses can stand unfalsified for now.
What about the subject of evolution though (where we have a good deal more information)? Are there any falsifiable hypotheses put forward by IDers that I'm unaware of? I'll admit I haven't read much of their material
then the resulting exclusion of ID arcticles from appearing in them should not then be presented as a some sort of evidence against ID (since ID is being excluded on methodological/philosophical grounds,
rather than solely on data/evidence).I agree with you there. "Reality" shouldn't be just what any one "authority" holds it out to be, but on whats out there. I do believe though that ID has been assessed by scientists based on the data currently on hand. The whole idea is to reinfe and expand our understanding. I wonder: Are ID articles really excluded a priori, or do they simply not pass muster according to Occam's Razor? Here's what I mean. Regarding evolution, is an intelligent designer even needed, if one can see evidence for a process that mimics intelligence? (i.e. natural selection)?
Probably should be getting off to bed.....maybe in a few more hours. Anyways you have a good one hooberus.
-
AlanF
scholar pretendus wrote:
: Your response was predictable devoid of substance.
You're funny, Neil. Your response here is "predictable devoid of substance." Do you have dyslexia or something?
Predictably, your response contains nothing whatsoever by way of response to my specific comments. This shows that you're unable to respond to them.
: There is no singular theory of evolution
As opposed to a singulatr theory of evolution?
Don't you read your posts in the "reply" window before hitting the "submit" button?
: but theories of evolution faddish within science at the present time
Faddish? LOL! Some 150 years of faddsihness.
: which are under attack from the ID movement scientifically speaking, not politically speaking.
Yes, politically and religously speaking, ID is devoid of scientific content. It has produced no useful results at all. If you disagree, then by all means, show us some useful results.
: To date science has not presented any missing links to fill the gaps within the biological and fossil record although they have paraded many candidates to fill the gaps but all have failed including invertebrates, vertebrates, primates and human life forms. The gaps remain as large as ever.
Nonsense. Your claim is made out of sheer ignorance, or sheer dishonesty. Hundreds of transitional forms are documented in scientific literature. A brief survey can be found in the "Transitional Vertebrates FAQ" at the talkorigins website: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
: Cosmology cannot account for the beginning of the universe
Oh? By the same token, theology cannot account for the beginning of the Christian God.
: or origin and no biology cannot account for the origin of life.
Well it also seems to be the case that no theology cannot account for the origin of God. So there!
: The big and esential mystery remains.
I agree. Why did God create those vile predators?
: The Creator and Creation books are well sourced
Let's be a bit more specific here. The Creation book has a lot of source references, to be sure. But as I've documented in the link I gave, many of them are misunderstood or simply misrepresented, or plagiarized from young-earth creationist sources. The Creator book's references are much less extensive than those in the Creation book, and I'm sure that that's deliberate, so as to make it harder for critics to expose the underlying dishonesty of the authors. The fact that many source references are deliberately not stated is proved by the fact that the Italian edition of the Creator book contains much more extensive source references than the English version, because the Italian government requires that all books published for Italian consumption contain full references. If it can be done in the later Italian versions, it can certainly be done in the original English versions.
: and well argued with its compelling logic arising from current scrientific research from varied sources with the scrientific community.
LOL! All of these "varied sources with the scrientific community", whether you understand it or not, are ID sympathizers, or have been misrepresented.
: The writers of such publications are not known and unknowable but are dedicated men who have a love of truth and God.
LOL! Neil, you're killing me! In 1997, when I was in New York for my brother's wedding, I went to Brooklyn Bethel and asked for Harry Peloyan to come down to the lobby of the 25 Columbia Heights headquarters building. He eventually did, and our meeting was quite revealing as well as entertaining. Peloyan reluctantly admitted to being the compiler of the Creation book (I had already confirmed this in discussions with a number of former Bethelites who had worked closely with Peloyan), so I have direct confirmation that he was the author. Do you really think that Peloyan's admission, backed by the testimony of at least four former Bethelites, was false?
: The ID hypothesis is indeed science and not religion because it simply forces science to ackowledge what is naturally known and understood instinctively and by reason alone.
LOL! The argument from ignorance, personified.
: Such reason alone compels one to believe that the world is of design and therefore there must be a Designer.
Ditto.
: Such maxims of truth are recognized universally by all philosophers and thinkers.
Abject nonsense. Most philosophers, for whatever reason, reject the notion of a Christian Creator God as promoted by IDers.
: Evolution recognizes the same truth but in a naturalistic form using a different label chance or randomness. Charles Darwin was a theist who believed in a Creator or Designer well expressed by William Paley and the modern day Richard Dawkins.
Are you for real? Prove your contention by some non-misrepresented quotations of Darwin.
: Evolution or evolutionism is simply a theory or hypothesis which is unproven or unprovable by the scientific method. The ID hypotheis is well demonstrated by the scientific method by direct observatiuon and repeatabilty.
Really. Can you point us to any experiments that show God in action creating some species? Can you perform repeatable experiments showing ID in action?
Neil, you're so laughably ignorant, it's beyond funny.
: Yes. it is good that you tremble at the knees of celebrated WT scholars who gy means of the fine literature are able to educate the ignorant masses.
My comments were entirely tongue-in-cheek, if you hadn't noticed. And I, "gy means of the fine literature" produced by the Society, as well as other commentators, have conclusively shown that these so-called "celebrated WT scholars" are nothing more than nincompoops who merely pretend to be scholars and are able to perpetrate a hoax on their followers by means of religious deception on a massive scale.
: No, the account of Genesis combines theology, philosophy and science as a perfect synthesis recognizing micro evolution with in kinds to account for the upward progression of athe natural order.
I see that you've been reading your ID literature.
: Science and religion have always coexisted together throughout history right up to the present day despite the hysteria of Darwinism.
Duh.
: Such a synthesis or perennial philosophy properly accounts for the chaos and disorder in the world as a consequence of sin.
Really. So you figure that lions kill Cape buffalo because Adam ate a forbidden fruit? And Komodo Dragons kill their prey by a biologically poisonous bite, which results in a week or so of painful deterioration and death, because Adam disobeyed God?
: The days of creation are believed to be
By who?
: periods of time with the seventh day, a duration of 7000 years.
That makes no sense. If you meant to say, "periods of time within the seventh day," I could understand you. Is that what you meant? If so, then it's apparent that you believe that Genesis' creative days were all 7,000 years long. You failed to answer my direct questions on this, but your beliefs are obvious.
: The predatory behaviour of the animal world exist in the context of a world of sin, disorder and chaos contrary to the Edenic world of harmony,perfection and order.
I see. So chimpanzees kill and eat various monkeys because Adam ate a piece of fruit he wasn't supposed to. Yes, that makes a lot of sense.
: The theory of evolution as currently presented presents a framework that has some links which support both the Bible and the ID science in that all life is complex, arose from a point of origin and reveals a symmetry and purpose. Where it clashes is that removes the presence of a personal and loving Creator.
Most of your statement is incoherent nonsense, not deserving of a reply. I'll leave it at that.
: I hope these remarks help you to find truth.
Oh, yes, Neil. You've convinced me beyond all doubt that the God of the JWs is a fine, moral being. You've thoroughly convinced me that he, for reasons inscrutable and that I must not question, created nasty predators. I'm a Christian now, and I believe wholeheartedly that the Watchtower Society's leaders were appointed by the holy spirit to tell the truth, and nothing but the truth, so help them God, to mankind. Neil, I wish that other JWs had the power of reasoning and convincing that you do. I will be rebaptized at the next convenient assembly.
AlanF
-
scholar
Alan F
No, I dont proof read my posts before I hit the Send button because I cant be bothered. I care little for impressions or trivial mistakes because for me it is the big picture. I am a big picture man. OK. If I was writing to an outside source the I would put my piece through a word processor and make it all fancy and pretty.
There is is singular theory of evolution but a number of competing models in vogue within the scientific community. Science has its fads as any philosophy or history of science demonstrates. Evolution has enjoyed a controversial history since Darwin and has always been plaqued by controversy since Darwin, 150 years ago.
It is a nonsense to say that ID is devoid of science, it is science to its very core, it is the description of science. It is just as much science as evolution, the only fundamental difference between ID and Evolution is the the Source is labelled differently. ID has a Designer which infers a God, Evolution has Chance which also infers a God. Both theories have a common source in a philosophic sense pointing to a First Cause.
There has not been nor is there now any transitional forms either living or dead but there are many pretenders. If you know of one then let me know. Give me not some fuzzy-wuzzy that is subject to interpretation or some pretend look- alike but give me a real fellow dead or alive because I have looked under the bed, gone to the paleontology museum, read may texts on evolution but if Darwin complained about the matter then What has changed since then? Transistional links are like the Phantom a product of Lee Walker's imagination.
Theology unlike cosmology does account for the beginning of the universe just read Genesis 1:1. and likewise theology does account for God because he is described as beginning-less, plain and simple.
You ask why God made the ville predators and I hate those wiley alligators. Your question is part of the divine mystery life, in time our knowledge of the world past and present will increase and we will understand much that is now beyond us. Such intellectual questions are part of life's wondrous journey. In the Garden of Eden such predatory behaviour did not exist but became manifest after the Fall with man and beast living in a now cursed earth present with sin, evil and death. Scholar should have a Bible Study with you in newly released book on Bible Teachings and then I can explain many things to you.
I simply vehemently disagree with you that the Creator book is not properly sourced and misrepresents its sources. Your remark and accusation is cowardly and demeans your brilliant intellect. Yes, you have retold the story about Harry Peloyan and how you have inside knowledge of things at Bethel many times and it sounds like that you are a little child that has a momentary association with the Bigwigs. It is a bit like meeting the President and having a bit of a flush. So, what such inroductions at Bethel are meaningless and prove nothing except to bignote yourself in the minds of others.
The whole history of Western Philosophy form Plato to the present is built on the foundations of thinkers who were believers in God or a supreme being. God is and has always been the very essence of Philosopny because Aristotle acknowledged that Philosophy begins with wonder.
Present day abounds with much experimentation which has caused some scientists to acknowledge ID which the evolutionary scientists have allowed themeselves to be blinded by their work. Evolution at the macro level cannot be verified by the scientific method but the routine practice of science forces one to acknowkedge as with evolution that there is a first cause albeit by a different name.
You too are a very funny fellow and I find your posts and comments hilarious because your ignorance of such matters is plain for all to see. Anyway it seems that we both make it other laugh and that is a good thing and perhaps oneday you may greet me as a member of the Sceptics Society which is as likely as you becoming baptized as a Christian.
scholar JW
-
stillajwexelder
Science has its fads as any philosophy or history of science demonstrates. Evolution has enjoyed a controversial
So has religion
Evolution has enjoyed a controversial
So has religion Scholar
-
hooberus
hooberus,
Here is one (from ReMine):
An intelligent designer is necessary for the origin of life from non-life.
This is potentially falsifiable (for example by a demonstration that nautral processes are sufficient to account for life from non-life).Now thats the kind of hypothesis one can work with! I like that example.
I also find it interesting that the subject of that particular hypothesis is in the field of abiogenesis. A field where, for now at least, there's relatively scant concrete information or data on which to test any hypotheses. I dare say thats why there are so many different naturalistic scenarios for the emergence of life, offered up by scientists --- not enough data collected to draw a valid conclusion on them. Yep, alot of properly formed hypotheses can stand unfalsified for now.
I think that the abiogeneis situation is much more dubious. We have a lot of knowledge about chemistry, and there are severe problems with every abiogenesis scenaio (ie: protein first, DNA first, RNA first, etc.). In fact, I believe that if it were any other (non-origins related) "science" field, that abiogenesis would be considered somewhere between highly dubious and falsified (see for example ReMine 1993).
What about the subject of evolution though (where we have a good deal more information)?
Your comment implies that evolution is a different subject than abiogenesis. I don't think that the distinction is necessarily quite as clear cut as many today claim. Firstly, there are many possible definitionis of evolution, and (in the past anyway) at least some evolutionists had included the origin of life in the definition of evolution. For example: Evolutionist G.A. Kerkut defined the ‘General Theory of Evolution’ in his 1960 book 'Implications of Evolution' as "the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form." (source http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/articles_debates/evolutiondefinition.htm) Also, I have an older book by prominent evolutionist Simpson, which seems also to include it in the definition. It seems to me that when modern abiogenesis was in its early stages that evolutionists were possibly much more likely to include it in the "definition", however since then with the discovery of the full magnitude of the problem they have insisted on errecting a firewall between the two (I think that if the situation had turned out differently that it would probably be in the definition). Furthermore, as ReMine points out prominent origin of lifers (ie:Cairns-Smith), have declared that the current biological universals (ie:DNA, RNA) are too complicated to have preceed life, and must be placed at a time point following the start of "evolution", thus accoridng to this they would be "back in play" under even the current definitions of evolution (which seek to exclude the alledged original self-replicating entities) from the definitions. I'll try to respond to the rest of your comments a little later, sincerely, hooberus
-
rem
Hooberus,
This is a widely accepted definition of the Theory of Evolution used by Biologists:
"In fact, evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next."
- Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology, 5th ed. 1989 Worth Publishers, p.974
The Theory of Evolution is a theory of Biology. Before living organisms existed there was no biology. Thus Abiogenesis is not a part of the Theory of Evolution.
It is common for people to use the term Evolution in the casual manner as you presented, but that is not what we are talking about when we refer to the Theory of Evolution. Therefore, unless you plan on discussing something different from the rest of us, I suggest we use the definition accepted by mainstream scientists in the field and not some harvested quotes that don't necessarily reflect the mainstream or modern view.
For more information, please see the following link:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html
Cheers,
rem -
hooberus
Hooberus,
This is a widely accepted definition of the Theory of Evolution used by Biologists:
"In fact, evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next."
- Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology, 5th ed. 1989 Worth Publishers, p.974
I am familiar with this definition. This is one of the definitions that evolutionists like to use to establish the "fact" of evolution (indeed it would). The problem is that it is so bland that it is compatible with virtually any origins scenario (from creationism, to panspermia, to universal common ancestry, polyphyletic origins, etc). Its really of little explanatory value. In fact, it doesn't even necessarily even require the formation of new genes, merely that frequencies of existing genes are changing (perhaps back and forth ultimately to exactly where they were before). In reality the above definition it is more accurately a definition of what population genetics studies.The Theory of Evolution is a theory of Biology. Before living organisms existed there was no biology. Thus Abiogenesis is not a part of the Theory of Evolution.
If Evolution deals with biology, then there shouldn't necessarily be a problem with defining it to explain all biology- including the cause of the first living (biological) organisms, (even as the prominent evolutionist George Gaylord Simpson did in his book "The Meaning of Evolution").It is common for people to use the term Evolution in the casual manner as you presented, but that is not what we are talking about when we refer to the Theory of Evolution. Therefore, unless you plan on discussing something different from the rest of us, I suggest we use the definition accepted by mainstream scientists in the field and not some harvested quotes that don't necessarily reflect the mainstream or modern view.
I wouldn't consider what I presented as being "casual". However, if you wish to define evolution merely as "any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next," then there really is nothing to discuss (since everyone acepts changes in alle frequencies).
-
Cygnus
Wasn't all of this covered in 1998 on H2O? Either these IDers are trolls or massively ignorant. "I don't proof read my posts" - "Oh well so what if not all my facts are right, my basic principles of argument are sound." ( http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/6072/1.ashx ) Hooberus....hubris.... I detect a pattern. Do you gentlemen say your prayers at night before sleeping? (Why do humans need sleep anyway? Will we sleep in paradise?)