Correction: In an earlier post instead of saying "I word it that we because of us have different ..." I should have said "I word it that we because all of us have different ..." or I should have said "I word it that we all have different ...".
Disillusioned JW
JoinedPosts by Disillusioned JW
-
20
What are the odds that Armageddon is soooo close?
by Vanderhoven7 inwell judging from past prophetic pronouncements....go figure.
"surely there is not the slightest room for doubt in the mind of a truly consecrated child of god that the lord jesus is present and has been since 1874;…" watchtower 1924 jan 1 p.5).
"the prophecy of the bible, fully supported by the physical facts in fulfillment thereof, shows that the second coming of christ dates from the fall of the year 1914.
-
-
Disillusioned JW
-
20
What are the odds that Armageddon is soooo close?
by Vanderhoven7 inwell judging from past prophetic pronouncements....go figure.
"surely there is not the slightest room for doubt in the mind of a truly consecrated child of god that the lord jesus is present and has been since 1874;…" watchtower 1924 jan 1 p.5).
"the prophecy of the bible, fully supported by the physical facts in fulfillment thereof, shows that the second coming of christ dates from the fall of the year 1914.
-
-
Disillusioned JW
What are the odds that the Bible is correct about what it says about Armageddon, not merely what it said about when Armageddon would happen?
-
20
What are the odds that Armageddon is soooo close?
by Vanderhoven7 inwell judging from past prophetic pronouncements....go figure.
"surely there is not the slightest room for doubt in the mind of a truly consecrated child of god that the lord jesus is present and has been since 1874;…" watchtower 1924 jan 1 p.5).
"the prophecy of the bible, fully supported by the physical facts in fulfillment thereof, shows that the second coming of christ dates from the fall of the year 1914.
-
-
Disillusioned JW
What are the odds that Armageddon will ever happen?
-
20
What are the odds that Armageddon is soooo close?
by Vanderhoven7 inwell judging from past prophetic pronouncements....go figure.
"surely there is not the slightest room for doubt in the mind of a truly consecrated child of god that the lord jesus is present and has been since 1874;…" watchtower 1924 jan 1 p.5).
"the prophecy of the bible, fully supported by the physical facts in fulfillment thereof, shows that the second coming of christ dates from the fall of the year 1914.
-
-
Disillusioned JW
What are the odds that Armageddon will happen in any of our lifetimes? I word it that we because we have different lifetimes (with possible rare exceptions, we will die on different days).
-
86
Is most of the promotion of creationism, not just that by the WT, charlatanism?
by Disillusioned JW inis most of the promotion of creationism, not just that by the wt, charlatanism?.
https://www.fullmoon.nu/sources.bak/chapter%2010/part%202/gish%20exposed.html [which has an article called "creationism: bad science or immoral pseudoscience?
- (an expose of creationist dr. duane gish)"] says the following.. 'a look at the "scientific" creationist movement and a close examination of the tactics of a well-known and influential creationist will reveal that the creation "science" movement gains much of its strength through the use of distortion and scientifically unethical tactics.. .... with the facts explained and the lawsuits won, scientists declared victory and returned to their labs and offices.
-
-
Disillusioned JW
Eric Chaisson (the author of the web page mentioned in my prior post) at https://lweb.cfa.harvard.edu/~ejchaisson/cosmic_evolution/docs/fr_1/fr_1_part.html says the following.
"A Symmetry Argument Physicists are mainly charged with the application of the laws of Nature to the present state of something in order to predict its future. Although, in recent years, a renewed respect for the role of chance has somewhat diminished our ability to predict outcomes in the old, mechanistic, Newtonian sense, we still like to try our hand at predicting general trends, if not the details. In the case of the whole Universe, that “something” is literally all things—nothing in particular, just everything in general. Hence, if we find it hard to mentally reverse time to appreciate the earliest epoch of the Universe, we can instead take advantage of the natural symmetry of a model Universe that will eventually contract, and thereby predict the physical events destined to occur as a closed Universe nears its final phase of total collapse (see Figure 1.16). This procedure is valid only because the mathematics describing contraction are a mirror image of those for expansion. In other words, the events that will occur just prior to the end of a contracting Universe mimic those that already happened just after the start of an expanding Universe. Not that time ever does reverse, as best we know. Rather, we can use some of the symmetry built into the laws of physics to estimate the final events of such a hypothetically closed Universe, thus gaining some inkling of the initial events ~14 billion years ago. FIGURE
Even if the real Universe is not closed in this way and will never collapse to a singularity, astrophysicists employ closed models in order to understand theoretically some of the highlights of the earliest epoch of either a closed or an open evolutionary Universe. It’s an example of how we can use symmetry and scaling arguments—to scale models up, or scale them down, in this case to scale them back in time—in order to recreate mentally places and times we could never actually visit physically."
-
86
Is most of the promotion of creationism, not just that by the WT, charlatanism?
by Disillusioned JW inis most of the promotion of creationism, not just that by the wt, charlatanism?.
https://www.fullmoon.nu/sources.bak/chapter%2010/part%202/gish%20exposed.html [which has an article called "creationism: bad science or immoral pseudoscience?
- (an expose of creationist dr. duane gish)"] says the following.. 'a look at the "scientific" creationist movement and a close examination of the tactics of a well-known and influential creationist will reveal that the creation "science" movement gains much of its strength through the use of distortion and scientifically unethical tactics.. .... with the facts explained and the lawsuits won, scientists declared victory and returned to their labs and offices.
-
-
Disillusioned JW
Finding (or coming up) with short overall definition of evolution ranging from the primeval universe (including its origin if it started as a singularity) through the formation of subatomic particles, the formation of hydrogen and helium atoms, the formation of stars, the formations (by thermonuclear fusion processes of stars) of many of atoms of higher atomic number than helium, the formation of planets, chemical reactions which produce new chemicals (even organic chemicals), the origin of life, and the evolution of life to a great diversity of life, is not an easy task for me. But It involves matter-energy being transformed (evolving) into the various things mentioned above, and into other things also. Since I am a naturalist, I perceive the processes as having no supernatural component, and no intelligent designer originating the entire processes. For the time being I refer you to https://lweb.cfa.harvard.edu/~ejchaisson/cosmic_evolution/docs/splash.html in which the author uses the term "cosmic evolution" and he includes cultural evolution and technological evolution as parts of cosmic evolution. An excellent book of his on the subject is called Epic of Evolution: Seven Ages of the Cosmos. It is on the topic of what some call "Big History".
-
86
Is most of the promotion of creationism, not just that by the WT, charlatanism?
by Disillusioned JW inis most of the promotion of creationism, not just that by the wt, charlatanism?.
https://www.fullmoon.nu/sources.bak/chapter%2010/part%202/gish%20exposed.html [which has an article called "creationism: bad science or immoral pseudoscience?
- (an expose of creationist dr. duane gish)"] says the following.. 'a look at the "scientific" creationist movement and a close examination of the tactics of a well-known and influential creationist will reveal that the creation "science" movement gains much of its strength through the use of distortion and scientifically unethical tactics.. .... with the facts explained and the lawsuits won, scientists declared victory and returned to their labs and offices.
-
-
Disillusioned JW
hooberus, you still haven't told me which type of evolution you want me to define. A definition for cosmological evolution is not the same as for biological evolution. A definition for evolution which incorporates cosmological evolution, chemical evolution, and biological evolution will be different than one which defines only one of the three. So which type of evolution do you wish me to provide a definition for?
I agree that evolutionary theory should pass the same tests mentioned in the Wikipedia article regarding creationism in order to be considered science. I am convinced that cosmological evolution, chemical evolution, and biological evolution each passes all of those those (but chemical to life evolution hasn't yet been demonstrated as taking place in the lab). I also believe that evolution of the type which incorporates cosmological evolution, chemical evolution, and biological evolution also passes all of the tests needed to demonstrate it is science. That type of evolution I sometimes call evolutionism.
-
86
Is most of the promotion of creationism, not just that by the WT, charlatanism?
by Disillusioned JW inis most of the promotion of creationism, not just that by the wt, charlatanism?.
https://www.fullmoon.nu/sources.bak/chapter%2010/part%202/gish%20exposed.html [which has an article called "creationism: bad science or immoral pseudoscience?
- (an expose of creationist dr. duane gish)"] says the following.. 'a look at the "scientific" creationist movement and a close examination of the tactics of a well-known and influential creationist will reveal that the creation "science" movement gains much of its strength through the use of distortion and scientifically unethical tactics.. .... with the facts explained and the lawsuits won, scientists declared victory and returned to their labs and offices.
-
-
Disillusioned JW
In my prior post I was referring to biological evolution, but there is also cosmological evolution and chemical evolution (including life arising from non-life). There is also cultural evolution. Which one do you wish me to define and would you accept me simply copying and pasting a definition of such that is in a book or online?
I will very soon be going to bed. Because I work long days and have long commutes, I won't likely be making a further comment on this topic till Friday of this week (I work Monday-Thursday), but possibly I will do so on Monday (tomorrow for my time zone) evening.
I notice you created a number to topics which promote creationism and intelligent design. I thus have no expectations of convincing you of evolution.
-
86
Is most of the promotion of creationism, not just that by the WT, charlatanism?
by Disillusioned JW inis most of the promotion of creationism, not just that by the wt, charlatanism?.
https://www.fullmoon.nu/sources.bak/chapter%2010/part%202/gish%20exposed.html [which has an article called "creationism: bad science or immoral pseudoscience?
- (an expose of creationist dr. duane gish)"] says the following.. 'a look at the "scientific" creationist movement and a close examination of the tactics of a well-known and influential creationist will reveal that the creation "science" movement gains much of its strength through the use of distortion and scientifically unethical tactics.. .... with the facts explained and the lawsuits won, scientists declared victory and returned to their labs and offices.
-
-
Disillusioned JW
I think I understand it good, for someone who is not a scientist. I have read much about it in the various evolution science books which I own. I started studying evolution heavily after I became an atheist and a scientific naturalist. But I sadly don't remember much of what I read. If I remembered just half of every thing I read I would be accomplishing many great things. I have literally hundreds of nonfiction books at home.
Evolution is testable and falsifiable. Various aspects of it have passed many tests.
See my posts about evolution in the following topic threads of mine.
-
86
Is most of the promotion of creationism, not just that by the WT, charlatanism?
by Disillusioned JW inis most of the promotion of creationism, not just that by the wt, charlatanism?.
https://www.fullmoon.nu/sources.bak/chapter%2010/part%202/gish%20exposed.html [which has an article called "creationism: bad science or immoral pseudoscience?
- (an expose of creationist dr. duane gish)"] says the following.. 'a look at the "scientific" creationist movement and a close examination of the tactics of a well-known and influential creationist will reveal that the creation "science" movement gains much of its strength through the use of distortion and scientifically unethical tactics.. .... with the facts explained and the lawsuits won, scientists declared victory and returned to their labs and offices.
-
-
Disillusioned JW
Is that which is called "scientific creationism" and/or "creation science" really science? Well consider that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_science says the following.
"The overwhelming consensus of the scientific community is that creation science fails to qualify as scientific because it lacks empirical support, supplies no testable hypotheses, and resolves to describe natural history in terms of scientifically untestable supernatural causes.[10][11] Courts, most often in the United States where the question has been asked in the context of teaching the subject in public schools, have consistently ruled since the 1980s that creation science is a religious view rather than a scientific one. Historians,[12] philosophers of science and skeptics have described creation science as a pseudoscientific attempt to map the Bible into scientific facts.[13][14][15][16][17] Professional biologists have criticized creation science for being unscholarly,[18] and even as a dishonest and misguided sham, with extremely harmful educational consequences.[19] "
The article also says the following.
'A summary of the objections to creation science by scientists follows:
- Creation science is not falsifiable: An idea or hypothesis is generally not considered to be in the realm of science unless it can be potentially disproved with certain experiments, this is the concept of falsifiability in science.[84] The act of creation as defined in creation science is not falsifiable because no testable bounds can be imposed on the creator. In creation science, the creator is defined as limitless, with the capacity to create (or not), through fiat alone, infinite universes, not just one, and endow each one with its own unique, unimaginable and incomparable character. It is impossible to disprove a claim when that claim as defined encompasses every conceivable contingency.[85]
- Creation science violates the principle of parsimony: Parsimony favours those explanations which rely on the fewest assumptions.[citation needed][86] Scientists prefer explanations that are consistent with known and supported facts and evidence and require the fewest assumptions to fill the remaining gaps. Many of the alternative claims made in creation science retreat from simpler scientific explanations and introduce more complications and conjecture into the equation.[87]
- Creation science is not, and cannot be, empirically or experimentally tested: Creationism posits supernatural causes which lie outside the realm of methodological naturalism and scientific experiment. Science can only test empirical, natural claims.
- Creation science is not correctable, dynamic, tentative or progressive: Creation science adheres to a fixed and unchanging premise or "absolute truth," the "word of God," which is not open to change. Any evidence that runs contrary to that truth must be disregarded.[88] In science, all claims are tentative, they are forever open to challenge, and must be discarded or adjusted when the weight of evidence demands it.
By invoking claims of "abrupt appearance" of species as a miraculous act, creation science is unsuited for the tools and methods demanded by science, and it cannot be considered scientific in the way that the term "science" is currently defined.[89] Scientists and science writers commonly characterize creation science as a pseudoscience.[14][15][90][91] '