Why naturalism is irrational

by Shining One 369 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  hooberus

  hooberus,

  there were quite a few things that biologists used to think that generally they don't anymore. that was 1949.

  Yes it was written in 1949, however there has been no reason since then that requires the origin of life to necessarily be excluded from "evolution". (other evolutionists since then can also be cited).

  i am not aware of many modern evolutionary biologists who consider origins a problem of evolutionary theory any longer.

  Generally modern evolutionary biologists have chosen to "deal" with the problem by simply defining it away as not a part of "evolution" . (see for example the glossary definition of "evolution" in Mayr's book "What Evolution Is"). However, the fact also remains that other statements by modern evolutionists seem to include it: For example on page 203 Ernst Mayr in his same book: "What Evolution Is" wrote: "In spite of its gradualness, macroevolution is characterized by numerous major inventions, which many authors consider to represent decisive steps in the advance of the living world. It begins with the inferred transitions involved in the origin of life and the development of the Prokaryotes. . . . " The same book ("What Evolution Is") in chapter 3 also starts with the origin of life, moves on to prokaryotes, then to eukaryotes, multicellularity, animal phylogeny, etc. (something fairly common in dedicated "evolution" books).

  when you think about the theory of evolution, it is obvious that it's all about bio-diversity in explanatory power. origins, really, don't have anything to do with bio-diversity.

  Evolution can deal with more than "bio-diversity" (it includes things such as the origin of eyes doesn't it?).

  origins are indeed an area of hypothetical speculation in the community of cosmology and bio-chemistry. if a creationist thinks it's a "problem for science", then they are not looking at the rafter in their own eye.

  What rafter?
• 

  tetrapod.sapien

  
  hooberus,

  kerkut is a biochemist, not an evolutionary biologist. of course he is interested in origins, as many biochemists are.

  1960 is not bad. but really though, you also left out the oxford definition from that link which describes "early primitive organisms", not origins.

  ts
• 

  Cygnus

  I vote that this thread be locked so t.s. can spend his time in more satisfying and productive pursuits, like drinking molson canadian and watching hockey, instead of arguing what has been argued ad nauseum.

  Rex, you used to call yourself WorldlyWitness on H2O, right? What has prevented you from applying the same level of skepticism to christianity and ID that you have applied to Watchtowerism?
• 

  hooberus

  hooberus,

  kerkut is a biochemist, not an evolutionary biologist. of course he is interested in origins, as many biochemists are.

  1960 is not bad. but really though, you also left out the oxford definition from that link which describes "early primitive organisms", not origins.

  ts

  I believe that your above comments refer to portions which were edited out of my post before I removed the "under construction" note.
• 

  Eyebrow2

  flying spaghetti monster.

  All hail this god...he who gives pasta and taketh it away.
• 

  Shining One

  >Rex, you used to call yourself WorldlyWitness on H2O, right? What has prevented you from applying the same level of skepticism to christianity and ID that you have applied to Watchtowerism?
  
  I have done that, Cygnus. Watchtowerism is a cult that intentionally twists everything that they teach. While Christianity can also suffer from the same types of things, the gospel is above all of that. There is no comparison in application nor in spirituality. Do I take things on faith, of course I do. Some of the reasons for faith is just about inexplicable unless you have been born again.
  If you think that naturalism is a real science with real facts backing it up you need to know this. If you applied the same skepticism to it that you did the WBTS you would be singing a different tune. The physical evidence of science can be interpreted more than one way. When you have the assurance of faith, you know which way to interpret it!
  I keep tellign you guys that you've fallen for the wrong set of presuppostions, that your assumptions do not hold water, but you do not listen. Its so easy to blindly follow when we have been taught that. Yes, I do know that can be applied in my case but then I have that assurance that goes back to the moment that I cried out to God to show me, "What is truth?". He did so and in such a unmistakable way that I knew that Jesus Christ is God, He is my lord and savior and it is in His rest and assurance that I reside! Praise God.
  Rex
• 

  Shining One

  >All hail this god...he who gives pasta and taketh it away.
  
  Have you ever said anything substancial in 1433 posts, Oh Jedi Master?
  Rex
• 

  tetrapod.sapien

  Rex,

  i take it you have nothing to reply to my post with? you're always going on and on and on about people replying to the crap you cut and paste onto this board.

  do i get a congratulations?

  ys
• 

  tetrapod.sapien

  Yes it was written in 1949, however there has been no reason since then that requires the origin of life to necessarily be excluded from "evolution". (other evolutionists since then can also be cited).

  and there is also no real reason for "origins" to be excluded from ANY of the natural sciences including geology. do they bother with including it though just because a bunch of fundamentalist lobbyists want it? no. it doesn't make sense. same with evolution. origins, do not have an effect on current bio-diversity except for the fact that we know that at some point there were origins. the origins however, were constrained by the terrestrial environment that they came into, and so based ob the natural history of the world, current bio-diversity would be very similar regardless of how or when the origin of life was. i originally asked you for evolutionary biologists that said this. you psted a bio-chemist, and then removed it only to say: "(other evolutionists since then can also be cited)." and my curiosity remains: i would like to know who and why.

  However, the fact also remains that other statements by modern evolutionists seem to include it: For example on page 203 Ernst Mayr in his same book: "What Evolution Is" wrote: "In spite of its gradualness, macroevolution is characterized by numerous major inventions, which many authors consider to represent decisive steps in the advance of the living world. It begins with the inferred transitions involved in the origin of life and the development of the Prokaryotes. . . . " The same book ("What Evolution Is") in chapter 3 also starts with the origin of life, moves on to prokaryotes, then to eukaryotes, multicellularity, animal phylogeny, etc. (something fairly common in dedicated "evolution" books).

  well, that's a nice explanation by Mayr of how he sees things going. this does not mean that he considers origins part of the theory of evolution. was this sentence part of his definition of evolution? does he present evidence to back up his version of abiogenesis? no, he doesn't. he is explaining things speculatively. don't misquote him. he's done more for the betterment of humanity than you have. yes. evolutionary biologists, and other types of scientists ARE interested in origins. probably more than you guys. it doesn't mean that they include such a concept in their theories for bio-diversity. hypothetical speculation in a book is one thing. appplied, peer-reviewed theory is another.

  Evolution can deal with more than "bio-diversity" (it includes things such as the origin of eyes doesn't it?).

  don't confuse the subject. of course it deals with the "origins" of of different things, it's called evolution by cumulative selection. this is different than what we have been talking about, and i am surprised that you would so blatantly try to change the subject and confuse the readers.

  What rafter?

  that's a facetious answer. you know exactly what i mean. for all your work into debunking the theory of evolution by natural selection, and learning about scientific method, surely you have noted that creationists and ID-ots HAVE NO TESTABLE HYPOTHESES OR SCIENTIFIC REPLACEMENT THEORIES. that is your rafter. you know? a la jesus? i find myself incredulous that this is lost on people like you and rex. you work so hard to tear science apart in the minds of the general public, and have NOTHING, NOTHING, NOTHING of technically viable substance to offer them in return. take the freaking rafter out of your own eye before approaching the theory of evolution. how about that? get it? TS
• 

  tetrapod.sapien

  cygnus,

  freaking amen man. i only do it for the lurkers.

  ts