Jump to content

Arauna

Creationism

Topic Summary

Created

Last Reply

Replies

Views

Arauna -
JW Insider -
53
1126

Top Posters


Recommended Posts

JW Insider said:

Quote

 

    6 hours ago, Arauna said:

    It is propaganda...... from scholars who have a vested interest to keep things going....... just like the high priests in Jesus' time...... they like the power and the influence this system gives them.

On the overall subject of evolution, I don't pretend to know the answers. I think that a lot of the evidence on both sides has been misunderstood, but every time I try to look into it myself, it seems that the "wrong" evidence is winning. My mother believes that Satan, who keeps transforming himself into an angel of light, was given powers/permission to hide fossils in whatever places he wished to cause confusion and division. (Perhaps a hint of this in Satan's argument over Moses' body in Jude 9.) I don't like this theory at all. I've mostly heard it from young earth creationists, and was actually surprised to hear it from my mother. It brings up so many questions about the timing of such "miracles" that Satan was allowed to perform. Were these fossils moved at the time of the Garden of Eden? Is Satan still allowed to perform these miracles today?

 

Your mother is hopelessly out of date here. Even the Society accepts the reality of the fossil record.

Quote

I've heard my father (in fact I've been with him at museums) back in the years when he tried to explain the feathers on certain non-flying dinosaurs as feathery-looking ferns and/or other leaves and plants. I've now seen enough of these fossils up close so that I realize he is just grasping at straws.

What else does he have?

Quote

I have always assumed that there is a bigger puzzle here and that none of us are ready to deal with all the facts and evidence yet. Although my own son (the math/physicist) tells me that the sum total of the evidence does currently fit the evolution theory, with some minor exceptions not yet understood, but which will probably still fit among the current theories, with minor adjustments.

Your son is far wiser than most JW kids.

Quote

To my son's credit, he does not believe the current theories are necessarily final, and they don't prove there is no God.

True on both counts. No Scientific Theory is ever final. It only becomes better and better verified over time, to the point where, as Stephen Jay Gould said, "It would be perverse not to accept it." Like the Theory of Gravity etc.

Quote

But here is the most surprising thing about my son's belief: The current theories are the ones that HONEST scientists are forced to accept based on rules of handling scientific evidence.

Exactly.

Quote

It's not the same as scholars having a vested interest in keeping things going because of power and influence. In fact, if a scientist could come up with a new theory that fits the facts and evidence, he would become the new Darwin. It's probably the "holy grail" of scientists to be able to topple a current theory with a better explanation for all the evidence The problem is not the scholars, or the theory, it's that this theory is the RIGHT one from the perspective of science. It fits the old evidence and the new evidence, so far.

Yep. And if such a maverick theory stood up to all manner of rigorous tests, as the modern Theory of Evolution has, most scientists would be happy to adopt it.

Quote

The best the Society can do is to look for inconsistencies and disagreements among certain scientists, and make the most of these issues to show us that there is still some room for disagreement over certain bits of evidence.

Right. Such disagreements are normal for a dynamic field of science.

Quote

I'm very disappointed when the WTS writers stoop to misquoting the evolutionary scientists, however, or quote a religious view from a different kind of scientist who clearly never dealt with evolutionary theory.

WTS writers are so well known for this dishonesty that most scientists laugh at them.

Quote

I'd like to think that the WTS writers were only being careless when looking for ways to discredit evolutionary scientists, but the clever way in which words have been selected for quotes, with other words left out, tells me that the writers have sometimes understood the original intent and stooped to dishonesty.

Exactly. I've posted about such many times.

Quote

I'm not sure why a WTS writer would ever think this was a reasonable solution for us. But it tells me that the WTS is not ready to explain the overall evidence yet.

Harry Peloyan, editor-in-chief of Awake!, once told me why they do it: they enjoy making secularists look bad. Apparently it didn't dawn on him that such tactics make the Watchtower Society a laughingstock in all arenas but the echo-chamber of the JW community.
     

Quote

 

    On 12/1/2019 at 12:26 PM, Arauna said:

    Uranium breaks down into  lead  reasonably fast.... and there is still uranium left on the earth..... so if the earth is as old as they say, there would be no uranium left.

This reminds me of a problem I've had with uranium. What GOOD is it?

 

That's not a well thought out question. Since it's produced in supernovas, along with most other elements, it just IS. What use people put it to is a different issue.

Quote

 

Radioactive substances were clearly on the earth when Jehovah declared each successive day "good." And after the sixth day he could look back and see that everything he had made was good.

Was it good because humans might find that some radioactive elements could be made to produce heat like coals? Obviously not! Were all radioactive elements and substances kept out of man's reach so that he would never come across them?

 

There's a lot of radioactive materials inside the earth. Some people have proposed that the earth's core is more or less a giant reactor. In any case, this internal radioactivity generates a lot of heat, which in turn drives plate tectonics, which in turn has made the oceans and continents into what they are today. Without those things, the earth's surface would long ago have eroded below sea level.

Quote

. . . Even animals that are violent with one another can still be trained to be peaceful in their interaction with humans.

Not entirely. For that to work, God would have to chain the brains of most predators. Or perhaps assign an angel to each predator. And of course, what would meat-eaters eat? Cats require meat, not vegetables.

Quote

But perhaps this is the same argument that AlanF is making about thousands of years

Half a billion.

Quote

of animals being violent and unloving with one another. I have less problem with that, than with all the things that would seem to be poison to us, and which we would only learn about through dangerous, even lethal, experimentation. Does EVERY poison and danger have a good side? When did certain plants and elements become poisonous to us? Only after Adam's sin?

All of which goes to prove my contention: the Bible Creator is not loving.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, AlanF said:

No Scientific Theory is ever final.

No evolution theory can be reproduced and be observed because the evidence is scrappy. ..... and one can hide behind the fact that it is not final...

6 minutes ago, AlanF said:

That's not a well thought out question. Since it's

The question is about the earth...... why there is still some uranium  here !  If it came from another supernova..... when and how was it replenished here on earth..... what catastrophe brough it here from that distance. The question is valid.

11 minutes ago, AlanF said:

Cats require meat, not vegetables.

Another argument against evolution, given in your own words.  So animals cannot adapt?  

14 minutes ago, AlanF said:

this internal radioactivity generates a lot of heat, which in turn

We are not talking about the core of the earth but the crust - that has been here for a very long time..... since you do not believe I  the flood

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Arauna said:

That indicates that you have not looked at the math to see how many minute changes are necessary to build only one cell - and this does not even include the whole entity with its many organs etc.

I think that this is true. So many things depend upon which scientists you listen to. Often, the scientists carrying the day at any given moment try to declare their opponents NOT reputable scientists. That way they can say: “All reputable scientists have concluded that.....”

I have stopped following the day to day development on this front, but I recall it was not uncommon for mathematicians to rule aspects of evolution out on the basis of probability alone, no matter how long the requisite time span be said to be.

I interacted with both atheists and evolutionists (often, though no always, the same) on my own blog. The most weighty of the posts were several years ago. I did read a couple of evolutionist books, “The Making of the Fittest: DNA and the Ultimate Forensic Record of Evolution” by Sean Carroll and one by Carl Zimmer. They’re not nothing. I benefited by reading them. But the do not change the big picture.

In some ways they reveal the fallacy of human thinking. People have figured out some of the appropriate questions to ask and that accomplishment is enough for them to carry on as though they had discovered the answers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TrueTomHarley said:

Quote

 

    4 hours ago, JW Insider said:

    I'm very disappointed when the WTS writers stoop to misquoting the evolutionary scientists

Do they? It is in the eye of the beholder.

 

They certainly do. This is not subjective, as your excuse claims: it is objective.

If a quote changes the meaning of the original, or misrepresents what the original author intended, it is a misquote, a misrepresentation, period. There are hundreds of examples of this in Watchtower literature.

Quote

Must one really point out when quoting a scientist that he believes his own theory.

Another straw man.

Quote

 

I gave an example with Darwin’s quote about the eye:

Darwin wrote:

“To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances . . .”....

. . .

. . . If you use his quote to suggest he considers himself a charlatan, that's dishonest. But if you use his quote to show he acknowledges some pretty high hurdles exist in proving his theory.....well, what's wrong with that?

 

Nothing -- as long as you also quote enough to show that he explained why the seeming absurdity is a misconception. That lack is why the Watchtower's misuse of Darwin's "eye quote" in the 1985 Creation book is so egregious, as are so many other misrepresentations.

This is very simple: an honest writer does not misrepresent the words or views of those he quotes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, AlanF said:

Without those things, the earth's surface would long ago have eroded below sea level.

OK. So maybe these radioactive materials were and are good after all.

Perhaps they are artifacts of creation to let us know that God is on a higher plane and his thoughts are greater than ours. One could surmise that the area of the original garden paradise was under God's control, and that as man would have needed to expand, the instructions for how to handle dangerous materials would have been forthcoming. Or perhaps all such dangers were safely buried until the Flood?

At any rate, I think we have to admit that animals behaved violently long before Adam sinned. Creating an environment good for man might have required a lot of death and destruction of very minute things as small as bacteria and some of the larger animals too, like a T-Rex, Saber-tooth Tiger, or a hippo, great white shark, lion, or crocodile. Perhaps this creates a reminder of the strength and power of the God who created them. (See Job on Leviathan, Behemoth, etc.) Whether or not man would ever sin, he should still have reminders of the awesome creation and Creator. His having the animals in subjection would not be very impressive if all animals were like pet sheep, even in their natural states.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Arauna said:

Quote

I did not just trust my family members but went out to discover the truth about it for myself.

That's why you're stuck in obsolete Watchtower teachings more than 40 years old, and continue setting forth young-earth creationist talking points.

Yes indeed, you've certainly done your own research.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, AlanF said:

which goes to prove my contention: the Bible Creator is not loving.

Which proves my contention about the diversity of animals which CAN eat poisonous plants. ...... where did this new DNA suddenly come from which made a poison their food?   

 

5 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

not uncommon for mathematicians to rule aspects of evolution out on the basis of probability alone, no matter how long the requisite time span be said to be.

True, some mathematicians indicate that the entire time given by evolutionists for the diversity of animals to come about by the chance of beneficial selection is not  enough time to build one folded protein..... the chances are zero.

3 minutes ago, AlanF said:

you've certainly done your own research

Yes, I am an independent type of person.  That is why I do not lap up your gobbledegook.  I am also not prone to make gods out of men.  So mommy watchtower is not my only source of information.

9 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

might have required a lot of death and destruction of very minute things as sma

Adam understood that he would go to dust if he disobeyed....... animals died.  Mice live one year in the wild and three years in domestic environment.

Wild animals could be put in sanctuary areas.... but personally.... I believe animals can be tamed and animals can adapt to a new diet.  In the Brazilian jungle there are dogs that get no meat. They mostly eat plant material. 

Carrion eaters can be tamed but maybe they were created to keep the earth clean from dead animals. ...so we will soon see.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, AlanF said:

Harry Peloyan, editor-in-chief of Awake!, once told me why they do it: they enjoy making secularists look bad. Apparently it didn't dawn on him that such tactics make the Watchtower Society a laughingstock

I've interacted with Harry Peloyan, and thought him to be honest. But I do believe the Evolution book (1967) was almost entirely his own work. He never told me, but he dropped enough hints. Do you think he was behind the 1985 book?

I can believe that Peloyan enjoyed making secularists look bad. I find it hard to believe, however, that Peloyan admitted that he used "dishonesty" to make secularists look bad. But he did make it through Harvard, and I therefore can't believe he didn't realize what he was doing was wrong. Today, one could be kicked out of Harvard for some of the same quoting tactics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

like a T-Rex

These ate meat? According to evolutionists who do not know animals and sit behind desks -yes.  They found in several places that herds of these animals moved about - according to the tracks.  

Animals that move in herds do not eat meat.  They could have used their sharp teeth to tear fibrous plants. What is very significant is the eyes.  A predators eyes look straight ahead - to focus on the prey.  Look properly at herd animals - their eyes are on the sides of the head - like T-rex.  And another problem: short arms....... cannot hold onto the prey to tear it apart or kill it.....

Mr alanF may laugh at me..... but this should demonstrate this: ... I am an independent thinker. When I saw an article about large groups of T-rex tracks.....on more than one location.... I started noticing .......... 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Arauna said:

Animals that move in herds do not eat meat.

Googling it, I see that animals that move in groups "include elephants, lions, wolves, bees, and ants." So I don't see how anyone can claim that animals that move in "herds" do not eat meat. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites





×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Service Confirmation Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guidelines We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.