I just realized I addressed my previous post to you and not to Dennis Moore. I lost track of the string. Sorry about that.

Hey Dennis,

Please take what I have written here from a sincere desire to pursue truth. If you will follow my suggestion, you will find yourself learning something you never thought possible: The W.S. is a den of dishonesty.

I’ve been meticulously researching the references in the text by the Watchtower Society (W.S) that you faithfully quoted above (Life: How Did It Get Here). The problem you have is that the W.S. authors (They don’t give their names.) did not, themselves, faithfully quote these authors (like Jastrow, Stanley, and Hitchings). Further, many of the quotes are brazenly taken out of context. Further, some of the claims made by the W.S. in their text are brazen lies. I have the text and the original articles referenced right here on my desk as I type this. I am currently itemizing the references in Chapter 4 so I can go look them up.

Notably, many of the comments ascribed to the various authors are only introductory in nature and appear in initial chapters wherein the cited authors, such as Jastrow and Hitchings, were simply laying the landscape within which they would then pursue the answers that were the subject of the writings. They faithfully explained the pros and cons to their readers. Then, they set about presenting the evidence thus far collected. Many of the quotes that appear in the W.S. text are from these introductory commentaries, but are presented by the W.S. as though they were the cited author’s conclusions. If you want to know what Hitchings, Stanley, Jastrow, Dawkins, and others truly thought, you’ll need to read the referenced material.

Here is Jastrow’s conclusion from his work “The Enchanted Loom” (Cited by the W.S. and source of the quote you wrote above), page 101, “As with all historical evidence, the proof of man’s animal origins is circumstantial, but its cumulative impact is overwhelming. The fact of evolution is not in doubt.” Query: Why didn’t the W.S. include this quote in its own text, LIFE?

This is what Hitching said on p. 12 of the same text you cited, The Neck of the Giraffe, “Despite the many believers in Divine creation who dispute this [discussing evolution] (including about half the adult population of the United States, according to some opinion polls), the probablity that evolution has occurred approaches certainty in scientific terms.” Query: Why didn’t the W.S. include this quote in its own text, LIFE?

As an example of the brazen lies told by the W.S., go to page 20 of the LIFE text. There you will find the following quote beneath a graphic depiction of three extinct species, the Eohippus (common name North American Horse), Archaeopteryx, and Lungfish.

“Some of the classic cases of darwinian change in the fossil record … have had to be
discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information.” — David Raup,
Chicago’s Field Museum of Natural History.

The actual quote, however, from Raup’s original article reads as follows:

“The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer
examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin’s time. By this I mean
that some of the classic cases of darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the
evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a
result of more detailed information – what appeared to be a nice simple progression
when relatively few data were available now appears to be much more complex and
much less gradualistic.”

Nowhere in Raup’s article does he suggest that evolution was no longer a viable theory. He was outlining the distinctions between two competing evolutionary theories: The Darwinian model of gradualism, and a newer theory whereby there are spikes in evolutionary advances, called Punctuated Equilibrium. Nowhere in Raup’s article did he state that there were no longer any known examples of transitional species.

The graphic depictions that appear above the misquote in the LIFE text, however, all have large X’s through them, indicating that they all are no longer considered transitional species. Problem is, Raup never mentioned Archaeopteryx or Lungfish in the cited, five-page, article. Why not? Because, to this day, those two species are still considered examples of transitional species. How do we know that the W.S. knew this when they published LIFE and decided to mislead their readers? Because in one of the very next references they cite, that by Steven Stanley, The New Evolutionary Timetable, there is a graphic depiction of Archaeopterxy, p. 76, being identified as an example of a transitional species between reptile and birds. The Stanley citation referenced by the W.S. is on p. 77 of Stanley’s book. Are we to understand that the anonymous writers at the W.S. didn’t notice that picture on the opposing page right next to the quote they were mining? Important note here: Raup’s article was written in 1979; whereas Stanley’s book was published in 1981.

I have found dozens of misquotes, which are frankly just lies, in the LIFE text. Query: If what the W.S. has to say is true, what are they hiding with these misquotes and lies? Why are they brazenly lying to their readers?

I suggest you do as I have done and take these people at the W.S. to task by diligently researching each and every citation they have included in their LIFE text. I am only up to Chapter 4 in that text and I have convincing evidence that the reason the authors of that text do not identify themselves is because they knew they were publishing lies. Good Luck.

“It is a dangerous business, Frodo, going out your door, you step onto the road, and if you don’t heed your feet, there’s no knowing where you might be swept off to.”

The biggest problem here is that you’re abusing the language. You’re using words like “knowledge” and “evidence” to mean things they simply don’t mean. You use them in ways that come very close to suggesting the OPPOSITE of what they mean.

There is ample evidence regarding evolution. The is ZERO evidence – actual evidence in the sense of what the word means – in your head or anyone else’s, that supports your beliefs.

In fact, that’s the whole POINT of “faith.” It is, in its most literal sense, the ability to believe that for which there is no evidence. If there were evidence you wouldn’t need faith, would you?

I was once a Catholic and when I converted to that Faith many moons ago I asked my assigned priest (an Army Padre) how everything/everyone could be reconciled. (He firmly believed that all peoples would end up as Cathollic). I had a bit of a problem accepting his view but he said that it was all wrapped up in God’s mystery…

To paraphrase your words, you haven’t convinced anyone, either. Is this how religion works?

I have no idea how you can even think that “there is just as much EVIDENCE for creation as there is against” when you haven’t presented even a single shred of evidence FOR creationism. All you’ve said is you don’t have the time nor inclination to look at any of the evidence for evolution. Fine. That’s your choice. If you are happy with your immobile, stagnant interpretation of the world, then fine. But don’t expect us to take you seriously when your entire argument seems to be that “scientists don’t understand everything, therefore god did it.”

Elaine, even if your brother-in-law’s faith never waivers, I hope that aspects of his faith does change over time. Being a physicist, I wonder what he thinks about this…

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7794668.stm

I am always amazed at the faith of my brother-in-law. His degree is in Physics, he is Head of the Science Department in a Secondary Comprehensive School in Britain and his Catholic faith never waivers.

1Corinthians 3:19 says: “ For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God;…”. Some scientist seem to think they have all the answers, but as I have seem from this discussion they don’t. I never said that the information on the web site I gave you was proof of any thing, did I? I said some scientists have come to believe that there is just as much EVIDENCE for creation as there is against. The book and website shows that this is true. The trouble with some, so called, highly educated individuals is that they look down on others and don’t take the time to really try to understand what others are saying. Well, I am not educated, but all you could do is ridicule the “holes” I brought up in your theory’s, you did not explain why they were wrong? AND, you did not explain how someone can say evolution is a fact, when in fact it is not?

So, laugh all you want, but you did not convince anyone! Is this the way science works?

Okay, now I need to ask you for some proof.

I’m sorry that you are set in your ways and feel that you don’t have enough time left to explore various theories about LIFE. Why not just try and pick one thing and study it? Really study it. I don’t care what. Your favorite flower. A cytokine called Interleukin-1. Your pet poodle. I don’t care. And if you come to the conclusion that “God wanted it that way,” then fine. Try to figure out WHY S/He wanted it that way. And HOW S/He did it. And HOW it all fits together. Don’t just say I never went to college or I’m too old and I don’t have any more time. Like I said in my first post. Your God gave you a brain. Use it.

But then I got to the most severely mistaken thing you’ve said so far (and that list is pretty long): as I am as set in my beliefs as you are in yours.

See, that’s the problem. You most certainly are set in your beliefs, but people like myself are anything BUT set in our beliefs. We never stop searching, never stop learning, never stop iterating our perception of the world around us. Never, ever. I know a zillion times more today than I did even a decade ago and expect to look back on Slammy circa 2009 with a good bit amusement come 2019, should I somehow last that long.

Once a mind sets it might as well be dead.

The name of the book is, “Is their a creator that cares for you”, published by Jehovah’s witnesses.

As I said above, I am not a scientist, did not even go to collage, so to talk to you about many of the things you mentioned I would have to do a lot of research. At my age I am not inclined to do that, as I am as set in my beliefs as you are in yours. However, when you can send me a scientific magazine that states that they have created life, even the simplest form of life, from an atmosphere thought to precede life on earth, I will be interested. Until then, the “holes” you mention that I brought up, in my mind at least, precludes anyone from making the statement, “evolution is now a scientific established fact”. It is not true! You can say, we know this, and so theoretically this should be the way it happened, but until you can create life in the laboratory you can’t prove that it happen that way.

IF, the above article would have said, evidence seems to indicate creation by evolution, I would not even have commented on it, because to you and many others that may be the case. But, it is not scientific fact yet.
Romans chapter one, verse twenty, in the bible says, ” because what may be known about God is manifest among them, for God made it manifest to them.  For his invisible [qualities] are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship”. For me, personally, this is what I see, tremendous power and wisdom and orderliness in created things. Everything in creation shows signs of design and that wisdom and design did not come from evolution. Just looking at the DNA that is needed for anything to multiply and exist. This DNA contains hundreds of volumes of Communication, communication that even scientists do not understand, and such wise communication does not come from Unintelligent, dead, non living matter. Because this communication had to be there first.

Don’t send me a book. A simple title would do. I can almost guarantee it’ll be in our library. Even if it isn’t, a book like that would have space on the web like any other idea out there. I could also send you a list of a hundred text books that cover everything from physics to biochemistry to neurophysiology. But I doubt it would get us any where.

How about we try this. Open that book you offered to send me. Pick one chapter. And outline one particular item that you consider “evidence against evolution.” Just one idea. We’ll go from there.

If you go back and read the first paragraph of my last post you will see That that is not what I said is it?

Ubertramp you ask:” What IS the evidence FOR creationism.”

If either of you would seriously like to consider why some scientists consider creation being just as plausible as evolution, I would be happy to send you a small book, that may, or may not give you some food for thought. I say “may not”, because not everyone has an open mind, being willing to at least consider evidence to the contrary of what they believe.

Anyway, my e-mail is dwmnow@msn.com, send me an address where I can ship the book and I will. Thanks, Dennis

Besides, you can’t really have a “pre-Big Bang.” Before the Big Bang, Time as we know it did not exist. You’d have to invent a new term…like “meta-time”. Within which Time, like Winnie the Pooh, just is. Hahaha.

Saying “water is perfect for the creation of life” is nothing more than a restatement of the anthropic principle – the universe must exist as it does because if it was much different than it is, then we wouldn’t be here to observe it. So what? Again, just because we can’t know why the fundamental relations in the universe are the way they are doesn’t mean that it was created – it could have been, but it could have been pure luck. As Ubertramp pointed out, we can’t know what happened before the Big Bang.