Creationists' theory in detail

[Hollie]

Breezewood - I am not quoting your post - metaphysics is a branch of philosophy - discussed here:

Metaphysics - Problems in metaphysics

Metaphysics - Problems in metaphysics: Although sensations (i.e., the conscious experiences that result from stimulation of the sense organs) are mental events, they seem to most people to be a source of information—fallible, perhaps, but in the main reliable—about a nonmental world, the world...

www.britannica.com

We do not base our beliefs on philosophy - the Bible warns against philosophy:

Colossians 2:8 - New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures
8 Look out that no one takes you captive* by means of the philosophy and empty deception+ according to human tradition, according to the elementary things of the world and not according to Christ;

metaphysics

metaphysical - to be more exact

is the branch of philosophy that examines the fundamental nature of reality, including the relationship between mind and matter, between substance and attribute, and between potentiality and actuality.

substance and attribute - the spiritual composition for a composite physiology.

We do not base our beliefs on philosophy - the Bible warns against philosophy:

Colossians 2:8 - New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures
8 Look out that no one takes you captive* by means of the philosophy and empty deception+ according to human tradition, according to the elementary things of the world and not according to Christ;

the religious itinerant never claimed to be a messiah ... nor disavowed their beliefs, the religion of antiquity.

as pointed out before, the 4th century christian bible is a book of forgeries, a political document disguised as a religion.

Why do you think the Bible was from the 4th century? There are a number of manuscript copies of portions of the Bible dated to well before that - e.g. a Dead Sea Scroll of Isaiah dated to the 2nd century BCE. And the Greek Septuagint translation was produced from the 3rd to 2nd century BCE and we have manuscript copies of LXX (=Septuagint) from before Jesus' time.

There are also papyrus fragments of the Christian Greek Scriptures (aka NT) from the 2nd century CE.

See this article on an early 2nd century papyrus fragment of the book of John:

Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

wol.jw.org

Excerpt:

"Roberts suspected that this papyrus scrap was very old. But how old? To find out, he compared the handwriting on it with other dated ancient manuscripts—a discipline called paleography.* By applying this method, he was able to assign an approximate age. But he wanted to be sure. So he photographed the fragment, sent copies of it to three papyrologists, and asked them to determine its age. What did these experts conclude?

By studying the style of the script and the strokes, all three of the expert scholars agreed that the fragment had been written in the first half of the second century C.E.—just a few decades after the apostle John’s death! Paleography, however, is not a foolproof method of dating manuscripts, and another scholar believes that the text could have been written anytime during the second century. Yet, this tiny scrap of papyrus was—and still is—the oldest existing manuscript fragment of the Christian Greek Scriptures that has ever been found."

The Watchtower doesn’t identify what “experts” viewed the manuscript.

First of all, we do not believe our literature is miraculously inspired or infallible. We are into scientific and Biblical research and both become outdated as new discoveries are made. I have not found any errors in our current website - have you?

www.jw.org

So, how old do you think that manuscript fragment of John is? I will post more documentation shortly.

What scientific research is performed by the JW's?

What manuscript fragment are you referring to? How do paper fragments make a connection to the gods? There are original manuscripts to Homer's iliad but I don't know of anyone who thinks that is a literal rendition of history.

 

[Hollie]

Hollie - for starters this source:

The Earliest New Testament Manuscripts

All of the books of the New Testament were written within a lifetime of the death of Jesus of Nazareth. Not so the so-called “other gospels,” which were pseudepigraphical Gnostic works written 100…

biblearchaeologyreport.com

Excerpt:

"P90 (P. Oxy. 3523), is a small fragment of papyrus with portions of the Gospel of John (18:36-19:7) on both sides in Greek. It has been dated paleographically to the second century A.D.4 This text is part of the Oxyrhynchus papyri, a group of manuscripts discovered in the ancient garbage dump near Oxyrhynchus, Egypt.

Papayrus P104 (P. Oxy. 4404) is a second-century papyrus fragment that contains Matt. 21:34-37 on the front, and traces of verses 43 and 45 on the back.5 This manuscript is 6.35 cm by 9.5cm in size."

P90 (P. Oxy. 3523) comes from an ancient codex of the gospel of John and dates to the second century. Photo Credit: Courtesy of the Egypt Exploration Society (London) and the Oxyrhynchus Imaging Project (Oxford). Wikimedia Commons / Public Domain

The source you supplied has an interest in applying "holy" to the parchment. How is the paper in any way connected to the supernatural?

 

[Hollie]

Darwin noted accurately the micro-evolution of finches on the Galapagos Islands due to survival of the fittest and natural selection.

He also noted speciation. This is what you usually refer to with the fake, useless, madeup term, "macro evolution".

True. We believe in speciation but only within the Biblical 'kind.' For example, we do not believe thousands of animal species were on Noah's ark. The vast amount of animal species evolved (micro-evolution) from relatively few 'kinds' on Noah's ark. An example is multiple cat species which may have come from 1 or 3 cat kinds - I think one btw. But cats did not come from dogs (etc.)- macro-evolution has never been observed.

Creationists did not originate the term macro-evolution btw.

Disagreements About Evolution—Why? — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

wol.jw.org

"After an important conference of some 150 specialists in evolution held in Chicago, Illinois, a report concluded: “[Evolution] is undergoing its broadest and deepest revolution in nearly 50 years. . . . Exactly how evolution happened is now a matter of great controversy among biologists. . . . No clear resolution of the controversies was in sight.”⁠3"

Reference 3

References Listed by Chapter — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

wol.jw.org

3. The Enterprise, Riverside, California, “Macroevolution Theory Stirs Hottest Debate Since Darwin,” by Boyce Rensberger, November 14, 1980, p. E9; Science, “Evolutionary Theory Under Fire,” by Roger Lewin, November 21, 1980, pp. 883-887.

Has All Life Descended From a Common Ancestor? — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

wol.jw.org

"... in 2008, evolutionary biologist Stuart Newman discussed the need for a new theory of evolution that could explain the sudden appearance of novel forms of life. He said: “The Darwinian mechanism that’s used to explain all evolutionary change will be relegated, I believe, to being just one of several mechanisms—maybe not even the most important when it comes to understanding macroevolution, the evolution of major transitions in body type.”33

Reference 33

Bibliography — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

wol.jw.org

33. Archaeology, “The Origin of Form Was Abrupt Not Gradual,” by Suzan Mazur, October 11, 2008, (www.archaeology.org/online/ interviews/newman.html), accessed 2/23/2009.
[now you need to go to archive for this article]

Evolution—Myths and Facts — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

wol.jw.org

"The teaching of macroevolution is built on the claim that mutations—random changes in the genetic code of plants and animals—can produce not only new species but also entirely new families of plants and animals.19"

Reference 19

Bibliography — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

wol.jw.org

19. Nobel Lectures, Physiology or Medicine 1942-1962, 1999, “The Production of Mutations,” by H. J. Muller, 1946, p. 162.

Macroevolution: Its definition, Philosophy and History

"Antievolutionists argue against macroevolution so loudly that some people think they invented the term in order to dismiss evolution. But this is not true; scientists not only use the terms, they have an elaborate set of models and ideas about it, which of course antievolutionists gloss over or treat as being somehow problems for evolutionary biology."

"The terms macroevolution and microevolution were first coined in 1927 by the Russian entomologist Iuri'i Filipchenko (or Philipchenko, depending on the transliteration), in his German-language work Variabilität und Variation, which was an early attempt to reconcile Mendelian genetics and evolution. Filipchenko was an evolutionist, but as he wrote during the period when Mendelism seemed to have made Darwinism redundant, the so-called "eclipse of Darwinism" (Bowler 1983), he was not a Darwinian, but an orthogeneticist (he believed evolution had a direction). Moreover, Russian biologists of the period had a history of rejecting Darwin's Malthusian mechanism of evolution by competition (Todes 1989).

In Dobzhansky's founding work of the Modern Synthesis, Genetics and the Origin of Species, he began by saying that "we are compelled at the present level of knowledge reluctantly to put a sign of equality between the mechanisms of macro- and microevolution" (1937: 12), thereby introducing the terms into the English-speaking biological community (Alexandrov 1994). Dobzhansky had been Filipchenko's student and regarded him as his mentor. In science as in all academic disciplines, it is difficult to deny a major tenet of one's teachers due to filial loyalty, and Dobzhansky, who effectively started the modern Darwinian synthesis with this book, found it disagreeable to have to deny his teacher's views (Burian 1994).

The term fell into limited disfavour when it was taken over by such writers as the geneticist Richard Goldschmidt (1940) and the paleontologist Otto Schindewolf to describe their orthogenetic theories. As a result, apart from Dobzhansky, Bernhardt Rensch and Ernst Mayr, very few neo-Darwinian writers used the term, preferring instead to talk of evolution as changes in allele frequencies without mention of the level of the changes (above species level or below). Those who did were generally working within the continental European traditions (as Dobzhansky, Mayr, Rensch, Goldschmidt, and Schindewolf are) and those who didn't were generally working within the Anglo-American tradition (such as John Maynard Smith and Richard Dawkins). Hence, use of the term "macroevolution" is sometimes wrongly used as a litmus test of whether the writer is "properly" neo-Darwinian or not (Eldredge 1995: 126-127).

The term was revived by a number of mainly paleontological authors such as Steven Stanley (1979), Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge, the authors of punctuated equilibrium theory (see Eldredge 1995), who argued that something other than within-species processes are causing macroevolution, although they disavow the view that evolution is progressive. Many paleontologists have held that what happens in evolution beyond the species level is due to processes that operate beyond the level of populations – for example, the notion of species selection (the idea that species themselves get selected similarly to the way alleles get selected within populations, see Grantham 1995, Rice 1995, and Stidd and Wade 1995 for reviews and discussions)."

Bottom line - it was evolutionists, not creationists, that originated the term "macroevolution."

The first “quote” ran in a The New York Times Article on November 4, 1980.

As expected, the “quote” is intentionally parsed from the broader context to convey something out of context.

It’s a dishonest tactic.

Which quote and what did you find from the context? A link would help btw.

List of fallacious creationist quotes

Many creationists quote the statements of others to lend a veneer of authority to their own work. This is a legitimate strategy, if used correctly. Unfortunately, creationists often quote-mine scientists, misrepresent the authority of a source, or quote vastly outdated texts, which create...

rationalwiki.org

Again - which quote and what did you find from the context? Most of the quotes are not from us - some are from creationists. Your link lists us as among creationists whom we disagree with.

No chain of evidence proving 'evolution' is a fact, so no need to keep lying about that to school kids, either, but of course irrational 'rationalists' insist on it.

Well, other than the fossil record.

True, the fossil record records gaps which are consistent with Divine Creation. As posted by others, the 'Cambrian Explosion' of many distinct life forms is an example.

Gaps in the fossil record do nothing to support supernatural creation by your gods or anyone else’s gods.

Firstly, the Cambrian explosion is expressed in geologic timeframes. The length of the Cambrian explosion is still ambiguous, but five to ten million years is a reasonable estimate; starting about 550 million years ago. 550 million years vs, 6 days is a little bit of what we might call a discrepancy. Even the shortest estimate of five million years is hardly sudden and nothing suggests a timeframe of 6,000 years ago.

Fossilization is rare. Supernaturalism makes things easy. One can shout out “the gawds did it”, and magically, anything is possible. You’re demanding that science meet a standard of demonstration not required of the gods. I’ll require fossilized remains of the gods in order to accept the existence of the gods, any of them.

Letting the Fossil Record Speak — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

wol.jw.org

Thus, at the start of what is called the Cambrian period, the fossil record takes an unexplained dramatic turn. A great variety of fully developed, complex sea creatures, many with hard outer shells, appear so suddenly that this time is often called an “explosion” of living things. A View of Life describes it: “Beginning at the base of the Cambrian period and extending for about 10 million years, all the major groups of skeletonized invertebrates made their first appearance in the most spectacular rise in diversity ever recorded on our planet.” Snails, sponges, starfish, lobsterlike animals called trilobites, and many other complex sea creatures appeared. Interestingly, the same book observes: “Some extinct trilobites, in fact, developed more complex and efficient eyes than any living arthropod possesses.”⁠20

20. Are there any fossil links between the Cambrian outburst of life and what went before it?


20 Are there fossil links between this outburst of life and what went before it? In Darwin’s time such links did not exist. He admitted: “To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system, I can give no satisfactory answer.”⁠21 Today, has the situation changed? Paleontologist Alfred S. Romer noted Darwin’s statement about “the abrupt manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear” and wrote: “Below this [Cambrian period], there are vast thicknesses of sediments in which the progenitors of the Cambrian forms would be expected. But we do not find them; these older beds are almost barren of evidence of life, and the general picture could reasonably be said to be consistent with the idea of a special creation at the beginning of Cambrian times. ‘To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system,’ said Darwin, ‘I can give no satisfactory answer.’ Nor can we today,” said Romer.⁠22

References 20-22 - (chapter 5)

References Listed by Chapter — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

wol.jw.org

20. A View of Life, pp. 638, 649. [ by Salvador E. Luria, Stephen Jay Gould, Sam Singer, 1981]

21. The Origin of Species, Part Two, p. 90. [by Charles Darwin, 1902 edition]

22. Natural History, “Darwin and the Fossil Record,” by Alfred S. Romer, October 1959, pp. 466, 467.

I haven’t gone through all your references and I need to do that because so often, the creation ministries will edit, purge or simply falsify the “quotes” they use.

Beginning with the JW doctrines, they immediately make an error. There was no “sudden, dramatic turn”. As I noted earlier, the Cambrian explosion was an “explosion” lasting millions of years.

How do the JW’s resolve that with a 6,000 year old planet?

You did not read the quote or you would have realized that we referenced "10 million years" for the Cambrian explosion - reposting this clip from above:

"A View of Life describes it: “Beginning at the base of the Cambrian period and extending for about 10 million years, all the major groups of skeletonized invertebrates made their first appearance in the most spectacular rise in diversity ever recorded on our planet.”"

I guess you also forgot we believe the earth (actually the date of shield rock) is about 4 billion years old - I will repost that for you as well:

How Science Affects Your Life — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

wol.jw.org

"Scientists estimate that the earth is about 4 billion years old and that the universe was born some 13 to 14 billion years ago. The Bible sets no date for the creation of the universe. In no place does it affirm that the earth is only a few thousand years old. The very first verse in the Bible reads: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” (Genesis 1:1) That general statement allows scientists to determine the age of the physical world according to sound scientific principles."

Sorry, but a statement from genesis clearly doesn’t allow scientists to determine the age of the physical world according to “sound scientific principles."

What “sound scientific principles” support your gods or any of the other alleged gods? You simply can’t base a “sound scientific principle” on an unsupported assertion.

For example, Lord Vishnu rules the heavens and earth is a sound scientific principle thus, we can asses with confidence that your your gods are subordinate to Lord Vishnu.

I’m using your sound scientific principle.

K-40 dating of earth's shield rock for starters. The half-life of Potassium 40 is 1.25 billion years, so atmospheric argon contamination does not significantly falsify dates near that half-life - including dating shield rock at c. 4 billion years.

In contrast, using K-40 dating for shorter periods of time are unreliable for dates in the thousands to a few million years as it involves such a small percentage of K-40 that atmospheric argon can make a fossil from 10,000 years ago appear to be 1 million years ago (Just giving a ball-park estimate).

Note: Jehovah's Witnesses do not worship Vishnu - we worship Jehovah (Psalms 83:18 KJV).

Why not worship Lord Vishnu when I used your sound scientific principle to identify Lord Vishnu as the true god?

First of all, Brahma, not Vishnu, is the Creator in Hindu worship. Their supreme gods are a trinity: Brahma, Vishnu, Siva.

What sound scientific priniciples for the existence of any of these gods did you post? I must have missed it!

I used the same scientific principles for the god Lord Vishnu that you used for your gods.

 

[Picaro]

No chain of evidence proving 'evolution' is a fact, so no need to keep lying about that to school kids, either, but of course irrational 'rationalists' insist on it.

Well, other than the fossil record.

Rubbish. the fossil record is a few bones scattered over millions of years, of extinct species of apes.

 

[Newtonian]

Breezewood - I am not quoting your post - metaphysics is a branch of philosophy - discussed here:

Metaphysics - Problems in metaphysics

Metaphysics - Problems in metaphysics: Although sensations (i.e., the conscious experiences that result from stimulation of the sense organs) are mental events, they seem to most people to be a source of information—fallible, perhaps, but in the main reliable—about a nonmental world, the world...

www.britannica.com

We do not base our beliefs on philosophy - the Bible warns against philosophy:

Colossians 2:8 - New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures
8 Look out that no one takes you captive* by means of the philosophy and empty deception+ according to human tradition, according to the elementary things of the world and not according to Christ;

metaphysics

metaphysical - to be more exact

is the branch of philosophy that examines the fundamental nature of reality, including the relationship between mind and matter, between substance and attribute, and between potentiality and actuality.

substance and attribute - the spiritual composition for a composite physiology.

We do not base our beliefs on philosophy - the Bible warns against philosophy:

Colossians 2:8 - New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures
8 Look out that no one takes you captive* by means of the philosophy and empty deception+ according to human tradition, according to the elementary things of the world and not according to Christ;

the religious itinerant never claimed to be a messiah ... nor disavowed their beliefs, the religion of antiquity.

as pointed out before, the 4th century christian bible is a book of forgeries, a political document disguised as a religion.

Why do you think the Bible was from the 4th century? There are a number of manuscript copies of portions of the Bible dated to well before that - e.g. a Dead Sea Scroll of Isaiah dated to the 2nd century BCE. And the Greek Septuagint translation was produced from the 3rd to 2nd century BCE and we have manuscript copies of LXX (=Septuagint) from before Jesus' time.

There are also papyrus fragments of the Christian Greek Scriptures (aka NT) from the 2nd century CE.

See this article on an early 2nd century papyrus fragment of the book of John:

Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

wol.jw.org

Excerpt:

"Roberts suspected that this papyrus scrap was very old. But how old? To find out, he compared the handwriting on it with other dated ancient manuscripts—a discipline called paleography.* By applying this method, he was able to assign an approximate age. But he wanted to be sure. So he photographed the fragment, sent copies of it to three papyrologists, and asked them to determine its age. What did these experts conclude?

By studying the style of the script and the strokes, all three of the expert scholars agreed that the fragment had been written in the first half of the second century C.E.—just a few decades after the apostle John’s death! Paleography, however, is not a foolproof method of dating manuscripts, and another scholar believes that the text could have been written anytime during the second century. Yet, this tiny scrap of papyrus was—and still is—the oldest existing manuscript fragment of the Christian Greek Scriptures that has ever been found."

The Watchtower doesn’t identify what “experts” viewed the manuscript.

First of all, we do not believe our literature is miraculously inspired or infallible. We are into scientific and Biblical research and both become outdated as new discoveries are made. I have not found any errors in our current website - have you?

www.jw.org

So, how old do you think that manuscript fragment of John is? I will post more documentation shortly.

What scientific research is performed by the JW's?

What manuscript fragment are you referring to? How do paper fragments make a connection to the gods? There are original manuscripts to Homer's iliad but I don't know of anyone who thinks that is a literal rendition of history.

What scientific research - On which branch of scientific research do you wish me to post?

Meanwhile, while waiting for your response, there is the biblography/references in our 2 brochures on the origin of life - I won't post the long list of references - just a link to these reference lists:

Bibliography — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

wol.jw.org

Bibliography — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

wol.jw.org

 

[Newtonian]

No chain of evidence proving 'evolution' is a fact, so no need to keep lying about that to school kids, either, but of course irrational 'rationalists' insist on it.

Well, other than the fossil record.

Rubbish. the fossil record is a few bones scattered over millions of years, of extinct species of apes.

And extinct species of humans as well. Indeed school kids are usually taught evolution. Teaching creationist doctrines would violate the separation of church and state. However, they could teach alternate scientific interpretations instead of implying macro-evolution is proven.

 

[Picaro]

No chain of evidence proving 'evolution' is a fact, so no need to keep lying about that to school kids, either, but of course irrational 'rationalists' insist on it.

Well, other than the fossil record.

And the DNA record.

Nope, the DNA record doesn't exist past a certain point, and it's also useless for accounting for calculating time ranges. It also merely shows adaptations, not how or when genuine mutations affected later DNA and rates of changes, nor how they spread so efficiently, nor the differences in racial characteristics. They in fact demonstrate just how useless racial factors are. Black peoples' genes in Norway don't seem to be in any hurry to turn them into blonde blue eyed white people, and white South Africans never showed any trend toward turning into Zulus, and neither Spanish nor German South Americans, after some 500 years, haven't turned into indians, or even mestizos.

 

[Newtonian]

Hollie - for starters this source:

The Earliest New Testament Manuscripts

All of the books of the New Testament were written within a lifetime of the death of Jesus of Nazareth. Not so the so-called “other gospels,” which were pseudepigraphical Gnostic works written 100…

biblearchaeologyreport.com

Excerpt:

"P90 (P. Oxy. 3523), is a small fragment of papyrus with portions of the Gospel of John (18:36-19:7) on both sides in Greek. It has been dated paleographically to the second century A.D.4 This text is part of the Oxyrhynchus papyri, a group of manuscripts discovered in the ancient garbage dump near Oxyrhynchus, Egypt.

Papayrus P104 (P. Oxy. 4404) is a second-century papyrus fragment that contains Matt. 21:34-37 on the front, and traces of verses 43 and 45 on the back.5 This manuscript is 6.35 cm by 9.5cm in size."

P90 (P. Oxy. 3523) comes from an ancient codex of the gospel of John and dates to the second century. Photo Credit: Courtesy of the Egypt Exploration Society (London) and the Oxyrhynchus Imaging Project (Oxford). Wikimedia Commons / Public Domain

The source you supplied has an interest in applying "holy" to the parchment. How is the paper in any way connected to the supernatural?

Its holie because of being very old.

Seriously, I was referring to dating NT manscripts from the 2nd century CE because another poster keep asserting the Bible is from the 4th century.

 

[Picaro]

No chain of evidence proving 'evolution' is a fact, so no need to keep lying about that to school kids, either, but of course irrational 'rationalists' insist on it.

Well, other than the fossil record.

Rubbish. the fossil record is a few bones scattered over millions of years, of extinct species of apes.

And extinct species of humans as well. Indeed school kids are usually taught evolution. Teaching creationist doctrines would violate the separation of church and state. However, they could teach alternate scientific interpretations instead of implying macro-evolution is proven.

My premise is if they are going to teach the evolution rubbish in science classes as 'facts', then they should also teach some of the better intelligent design theories as well. I'm not a 'creationist', nor am I stupid enough to parrot 'evolution' rubbish just so I can be a member of some treehouse club for tards who obviously have political agendas, not 'scientific' ones or 'rational' ones. It's that simple. My premise is we shouldn't babble about 'evolution' and then also expect kids to buy into empiricism and methodologies after lying so blatantly to them.

 

[Picaro]

Hollie - for starters this source:

The Earliest New Testament Manuscripts

All of the books of the New Testament were written within a lifetime of the death of Jesus of Nazareth. Not so the so-called “other gospels,” which were pseudepigraphical Gnostic works written 100…

biblearchaeologyreport.com

Excerpt:

"P90 (P. Oxy. 3523), is a small fragment of papyrus with portions of the Gospel of John (18:36-19:7) on both sides in Greek. It has been dated paleographically to the second century A.D.4 This text is part of the Oxyrhynchus papyri, a group of manuscripts discovered in the ancient garbage dump near Oxyrhynchus, Egypt.

Papayrus P104 (P. Oxy. 4404) is a second-century papyrus fragment that contains Matt. 21:34-37 on the front, and traces of verses 43 and 45 on the back.5 This manuscript is 6.35 cm by 9.5cm in size."

P90 (P. Oxy. 3523) comes from an ancient codex of the gospel of John and dates to the second century. Photo Credit: Courtesy of the Egypt Exploration Society (London) and the Oxyrhynchus Imaging Project (Oxford). Wikimedia Commons / Public Domain

The source you supplied has an interest in applying "holy" to the parchment. How is the paper in any way connected to the supernatural?

Its holie because of being very old.

Seriously, I was referring to dating NT manscripts from the 2nd century CE because another poster keep asserting the Bible is from the 4th century.

It was an oral thing before being written down, so they are earlier compositions than the 2nd Century as well. The Gospels are the only four that matter the most, the rest are histories, clarifications of various points, and advice on assorted matters, and prophecies. And, they are internally consistent and compatible with the OT and Jewish theology, mostly the pre-Exile Judaism.

 

[Hollie]

Breezewood - I am not quoting your post - metaphysics is a branch of philosophy - discussed here:

Metaphysics - Problems in metaphysics

Metaphysics - Problems in metaphysics: Although sensations (i.e., the conscious experiences that result from stimulation of the sense organs) are mental events, they seem to most people to be a source of information—fallible, perhaps, but in the main reliable—about a nonmental world, the world...

www.britannica.com

We do not base our beliefs on philosophy - the Bible warns against philosophy:

Colossians 2:8 - New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures
8 Look out that no one takes you captive* by means of the philosophy and empty deception+ according to human tradition, according to the elementary things of the world and not according to Christ;

metaphysics

metaphysical - to be more exact

is the branch of philosophy that examines the fundamental nature of reality, including the relationship between mind and matter, between substance and attribute, and between potentiality and actuality.

substance and attribute - the spiritual composition for a composite physiology.

We do not base our beliefs on philosophy - the Bible warns against philosophy:

Colossians 2:8 - New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures
8 Look out that no one takes you captive* by means of the philosophy and empty deception+ according to human tradition, according to the elementary things of the world and not according to Christ;

the religious itinerant never claimed to be a messiah ... nor disavowed their beliefs, the religion of antiquity.

as pointed out before, the 4th century christian bible is a book of forgeries, a political document disguised as a religion.

Why do you think the Bible was from the 4th century? There are a number of manuscript copies of portions of the Bible dated to well before that - e.g. a Dead Sea Scroll of Isaiah dated to the 2nd century BCE. And the Greek Septuagint translation was produced from the 3rd to 2nd century BCE and we have manuscript copies of LXX (=Septuagint) from before Jesus' time.

There are also papyrus fragments of the Christian Greek Scriptures (aka NT) from the 2nd century CE.

See this article on an early 2nd century papyrus fragment of the book of John:

Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

wol.jw.org

Excerpt:

"Roberts suspected that this papyrus scrap was very old. But how old? To find out, he compared the handwriting on it with other dated ancient manuscripts—a discipline called paleography.* By applying this method, he was able to assign an approximate age. But he wanted to be sure. So he photographed the fragment, sent copies of it to three papyrologists, and asked them to determine its age. What did these experts conclude?

By studying the style of the script and the strokes, all three of the expert scholars agreed that the fragment had been written in the first half of the second century C.E.—just a few decades after the apostle John’s death! Paleography, however, is not a foolproof method of dating manuscripts, and another scholar believes that the text could have been written anytime during the second century. Yet, this tiny scrap of papyrus was—and still is—the oldest existing manuscript fragment of the Christian Greek Scriptures that has ever been found."

The Watchtower doesn’t identify what “experts” viewed the manuscript.

First of all, we do not believe our literature is miraculously inspired or infallible. We are into scientific and Biblical research and both become outdated as new discoveries are made. I have not found any errors in our current website - have you?

www.jw.org

So, how old do you think that manuscript fragment of John is? I will post more documentation shortly.

What scientific research is performed by the JW's?

What manuscript fragment are you referring to? How do paper fragments make a connection to the gods? There are original manuscripts to Homer's iliad but I don't know of anyone who thinks that is a literal rendition of history.

What scientific research - On which branch of scientific research do you wish me to post?

Meanwhile, while waiting for your response, there is the biblography/references in our 2 brochures on the origin of life - I won't post the long list of references - just a link to these reference lists:

Bibliography — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

wol.jw.org

Bibliography — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

wol.jw.org

Let’s start with the biological sciences. What research facilities are maintained by the JW’s? To what peer reviewed journals have the JW’s submitted research data?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

No chain of evidence proving 'evolution' is a fact, so no need to keep lying about that to school kids, either, but of course irrational 'rationalists' insist on it.

Well, other than the fossil record.

And the DNA record.

Nope, the DNA record doesn't exist past a certain point, and it's also useless for accounting for calculating time ranges. It also merely shows adaptations, not how or when genuine mutations affected later DNA and rates of changes, nor how they spread so efficiently, nor the differences in racial characteristics. They in fact demonstrate just how useless racial factors are. Black peoples' genes in Norway don't seem to be in any hurry to turn them into blonde blue eyed white people, and white South Africans never showed any trend toward turning into Zulus, and neither Spanish nor German South Americans, after some 500 years, haven't turned into indians, or even mestizos.

Nope, the DNA record doesn't exist past a certain point

DNA of living things...…..

 

[Newtonian]

No chain of evidence proving 'evolution' is a fact, so no need to keep lying about that to school kids, either, but of course irrational 'rationalists' insist on it.

Well, other than the fossil record.

And the DNA record.

Nope, the DNA record doesn't exist past a certain point, and it's also useless for accounting for calculating time ranges. It also merely shows adaptations, not how or when genuine mutations affected later DNA and rates of changes, nor how they spread so efficiently, nor the differences in racial characteristics. They in fact demonstrate just how useless racial factors are. Black peoples' genes in Norway don't seem to be in any hurry to turn them into blonde blue eyed white people, and white South Africans never showed any trend toward turning into Zulus, and neither Spanish nor German South Americans, after some 500 years, haven't turned into indians, or even mestizos.

Good post Actually black people are usually various shades of brown, and white people are never pure white. But, yes, as anthropologist Ashley Montagu showed in his book "Man's most dangerous myth - the fallacy of race" he shows that all races are related and that the variance within so-called races is usually greater than the variation of races. I think that was the book where I learned 'Peking man" had a similar skull size and structure to that of the Vedda of Sri Lanka (Ceylon) Genetic studies have long shown all races of man have a common origin in harmony with what the Bible actually teaches, e.g.:

Acts 17:26 (NW)
And he made out of one man+ every nation of men to dwell on the entire surface of the earth,+

More recently, studies have shown that all races also come from one woman - the mitochondrial Eve, and from one man - the y-chromosomal Adam. You are correct that the molecular clock is not reliable at all - so I disregard the dates and stick with the actual genetic research when I am researching this subject:

First from our literature giving the basics of this genetic finding:

An Ancient Creation Record—Can You Trust It? — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

wol.jw.org

"In recent years, scientists have researched human genes extensively. By comparing human genetic patterns around the earth, they found clear evidence that all humans have a common ancestor, a source of the DNA of all people who have ever lived, including each of us. In 1988, Newsweek magazine presented those findings in a report entitled “The Search for Adam and Eve.” Those studies were based on a type of mitochondrial DNA, genetic material passed on only by the female. Reports in 1995 about research on male DNA point to the same conclusion—that “there was an ancestral ‘Adam,’ whose genetic material on the [Y] chromosome is common to every man now on earth,” as Time magazine put it. Whether those findings are accurate in every detail or not, they illustrate that the history we find in Genesis is highly credible, being authored by One who was on the scene at the time."

The following source is off on the dating (molecular clock) but accurate on the genetics:

https://ncse.ngo/files/pub/GigaWalk/mitochondrial-eve.pdf

"In the field of human genetics, the name Mitochondrial Eve refers to the matrilineal most recent common ancestor (MRCA) of all currently living anatomically modern humans, who is estimated to have lived approximately 100,000–200,000 years ago. This is the most recent woman from whom all living humans today descend, on their mother’s side, and through the mothers of those mothers, and so on, back until all lines converge on one person. Because all mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) generally (but see paternal mtDNA transmission) is passed from mother to offspring without recombination, all mtDNA in every living person is directly descended from hers by definition, differing only by the mutations that over generations have occurred in the germ cell mtDNA since the conception of the original "Mitochondrial Eve". "

Note, however, the assertion (with zero proof) that there were other mothers before the mtDNA Eve. This is based on the assumption that the previous mother had only one daughter. This is very unlikely since the population was lower and large families would have been more likely. e.g Genesis 5:4 states Adam and Eve had plural daughters.

Concerning the Y-chromosomal Adam:

Y chromosome analysis moves Adam closer to Eve

A pair of genetic studies has pushed back age of men's most recent common ancestor.

www.sciencenews.org

Y-chromosomal Adam

Y chromosome in descendants of one human male In human genetics, Y chromosomal Adam ( Y MRCA) is the theoretical most recent common ancestor (MRCA) from whom all living people are descended patrilineally (tracing back along the paternal lines of…

enacademic.com

"In human genetics, Y-chromosomal Adam ( Y-MRCA) is the theoretical most recent common ancestor (MRCA) from whom all living people are descended patrilineally (tracing back along the paternal lines of their family tree only)."

Y-chromosomal Adam - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"In human genetics, the Y-chromosomal most recent common ancestor (Y-MRCA, informally known as Y-chromosomal Adam) is the most recent common ancestor (MRCA) from whom all currently living males are descended patrilineally. The term Y-MRCA reflects the fact that the Y chromosomes of all currently living human males are directly derived from the Y chromosome of this remote ancestor. The analogous concept of the matrilineal most recent common ancestor is known as "Mitochondrial Eve" (mt-MRCA, named for the matrilineal transmission of mtDNA), the most recent woman from whom all living humans are descended matrilineally."

 

[Hollie]

No chain of evidence proving 'evolution' is a fact, so no need to keep lying about that to school kids, either, but of course irrational 'rationalists' insist on it.

Well, other than the fossil record.

Rubbish. the fossil record is a few bones scattered over millions of years, of extinct species of apes.

And extinct species of humans as well. Indeed school kids are usually taught evolution. Teaching creationist doctrines would violate the separation of church and state. However, they could teach alternate scientific interpretations instead of implying macro-evolution is proven.

My premise is if they are going to teach the evolution rubbish in science classes as 'facts', then they should also teach some of the better intelligent design theories as well. I'm not a 'creationist', nor am I stupid enough to parrot 'evolution' rubbish just so I can be a member of some treehouse club for tards who obviously have political agendas, not 'scientific' ones or 'rational' ones. It's that simple. My premise is we shouldn't babble about 'evolution' and then also expect kids to buy into empiricism and methodologies after lying so blatantly to them.

There’s no such thing as “better ID / creationism” as it’s just remanufacturing of Christian fundamentalism. The creationist hacks lost their legal battle over teaching creationsm in schools because It was about the Christian religion.The industry of extremist Christians is a part of what we can call "The Amazing Shrinking Creation Model." The earlier attempts by Christian fundamentalists to force Christian creationism into the schools made no effort to conceal the agenda of promoting Biblical literalism. Those efforts were originally titled as "Biblical Creationism" with great candor. Faced with the correct legal conclusions that it was merely religion, they retreated and renamed it "Scientific Creationism," making a half hearted attempt to edit out explicit Biblical references... but that fooled no one. When that met an equally unambiguous decision in the courts, the new version became "Intelligent Design." In the process, the creationist movement has become progressively less candid, more angry, more extremist and frankly more desperate.

 

[Newtonian]

Breezewood - I am not quoting your post - metaphysics is a branch of philosophy - discussed here:

Metaphysics - Problems in metaphysics

Metaphysics - Problems in metaphysics: Although sensations (i.e., the conscious experiences that result from stimulation of the sense organs) are mental events, they seem to most people to be a source of information—fallible, perhaps, but in the main reliable—about a nonmental world, the world...

www.britannica.com

We do not base our beliefs on philosophy - the Bible warns against philosophy:

Colossians 2:8 - New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures
8 Look out that no one takes you captive* by means of the philosophy and empty deception+ according to human tradition, according to the elementary things of the world and not according to Christ;

metaphysics

metaphysical - to be more exact

is the branch of philosophy that examines the fundamental nature of reality, including the relationship between mind and matter, between substance and attribute, and between potentiality and actuality.

substance and attribute - the spiritual composition for a composite physiology.

We do not base our beliefs on philosophy - the Bible warns against philosophy:

Colossians 2:8 - New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures
8 Look out that no one takes you captive* by means of the philosophy and empty deception+ according to human tradition, according to the elementary things of the world and not according to Christ;

the religious itinerant never claimed to be a messiah ... nor disavowed their beliefs, the religion of antiquity.

as pointed out before, the 4th century christian bible is a book of forgeries, a political document disguised as a religion.

Why do you think the Bible was from the 4th century? There are a number of manuscript copies of portions of the Bible dated to well before that - e.g. a Dead Sea Scroll of Isaiah dated to the 2nd century BCE. And the Greek Septuagint translation was produced from the 3rd to 2nd century BCE and we have manuscript copies of LXX (=Septuagint) from before Jesus' time.

There are also papyrus fragments of the Christian Greek Scriptures (aka NT) from the 2nd century CE.

See this article on an early 2nd century papyrus fragment of the book of John:

Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

wol.jw.org

Excerpt:

"Roberts suspected that this papyrus scrap was very old. But how old? To find out, he compared the handwriting on it with other dated ancient manuscripts—a discipline called paleography.* By applying this method, he was able to assign an approximate age. But he wanted to be sure. So he photographed the fragment, sent copies of it to three papyrologists, and asked them to determine its age. What did these experts conclude?

By studying the style of the script and the strokes, all three of the expert scholars agreed that the fragment had been written in the first half of the second century C.E.—just a few decades after the apostle John’s death! Paleography, however, is not a foolproof method of dating manuscripts, and another scholar believes that the text could have been written anytime during the second century. Yet, this tiny scrap of papyrus was—and still is—the oldest existing manuscript fragment of the Christian Greek Scriptures that has ever been found."

The Watchtower doesn’t identify what “experts” viewed the manuscript.

First of all, we do not believe our literature is miraculously inspired or infallible. We are into scientific and Biblical research and both become outdated as new discoveries are made. I have not found any errors in our current website - have you?

www.jw.org

So, how old do you think that manuscript fragment of John is? I will post more documentation shortly.

What scientific research is performed by the JW's?

What manuscript fragment are you referring to? How do paper fragments make a connection to the gods? There are original manuscripts to Homer's iliad but I don't know of anyone who thinks that is a literal rendition of history.

What scientific research - On which branch of scientific research do you wish me to post?

Meanwhile, while waiting for your response, there is the biblography/references in our 2 brochures on the origin of life - I won't post the long list of references - just a link to these reference lists:

Bibliography — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

wol.jw.org

Bibliography — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

wol.jw.org

Let’s start with the biological sciences. What research facilities are maintained by the JW’s? To what peer reviewed journals have the JW’s submitted research data?

I/we do NOT submit research for peer review. We build on the research of other scientists. Of course, some scientists are Jehovah's Witnesses and do research is specific fields - we rarely quote them.

Personally I am a totally independent scientific researcher. Those who submit peer reviewed articles are not totally independent because they seek approval of peers.

If you think peer review is evidence of accuracy, then why are there contradictory articles that have been approved by peers?

Personally, I will not be convinced by the fact that a certain model/theory/postulate is approved by peers. You would actually have to supply proof. Of course, we do quote peer reviewed sources for proof- but the proof is NOT because they are peer reviewed. The proof is in the actual observations by the scientific method. And why have approved models changed over time?

So, for example, if you doubt the above manuscripts are from the 2nd century CE - what evidence or proof can you post to the contrary?

1 Thessalonians 5:21 - "Prove all things" - KJV

I have not and never will publish my research because that introduces the profit motive. Our literature is also free of charge, btw. - we have only truth, not profit, as our incentive.

 

[Hollie]

No chain of evidence proving 'evolution' is a fact, so no need to keep lying about that to school kids, either, but of course irrational 'rationalists' insist on it.

Well, other than the fossil record.

And the DNA record.

Nope, the DNA record doesn't exist past a certain point, and it's also useless for accounting for calculating time ranges. It also merely shows adaptations, not how or when genuine mutations affected later DNA and rates of changes, nor how they spread so efficiently, nor the differences in racial characteristics. They in fact demonstrate just how useless racial factors are. Black peoples' genes in Norway don't seem to be in any hurry to turn them into blonde blue eyed white people, and white South Africans never showed any trend toward turning into Zulus, and neither Spanish nor German South Americans, after some 500 years, haven't turned into indians, or even mestizos.

Good post Actually black people are usually various shades of brown, and white people are never pure white. But, yes, as anthropologist Ashley Montagu showed in his book "Man's most dangerous myth - the fallacy of race" he shows that all races are related and that the variance within so-called races is usually greater than the variation of races. I think that was the book where I learned 'Peking man" had a similar skull size and structure to that of the Vedda of Sri Lanka (Ceylon) Genetic studies have long shown all races of man have a common origin in harmony with what the Bible actually teaches, e.g.:

Acts 17:26 (NW)
And he made out of one man+ every nation of men to dwell on the entire surface of the earth,+

More recently, studies have shown that all races also come from one woman - the mitochondrial Eve, and from one man - the y-chromosomal Adam. You are correct that the molecular clock is not reliable at all - so I disregard the dates and stick with the actual genetic research when I am researching this subject:

First from our literature giving the basics of this genetic finding:

An Ancient Creation Record—Can You Trust It? — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

wol.jw.org

"In recent years, scientists have researched human genes extensively. By comparing human genetic patterns around the earth, they found clear evidence that all humans have a common ancestor, a source of the DNA of all people who have ever lived, including each of us. In 1988, Newsweek magazine presented those findings in a report entitled “The Search for Adam and Eve.” Those studies were based on a type of mitochondrial DNA, genetic material passed on only by the female. Reports in 1995 about research on male DNA point to the same conclusion—that “there was an ancestral ‘Adam,’ whose genetic material on the [Y] chromosome is common to every man now on earth,” as Time magazine put it. Whether those findings are accurate in every detail or not, they illustrate that the history we find in Genesis is highly credible, being authored by One who was on the scene at the time."

The following source is off on the dating (molecular clock) but accurate on the genetics:

https://ncse.ngo/files/pub/GigaWalk/mitochondrial-eve.pdf

"In the field of human genetics, the name Mitochondrial Eve refers to the matrilineal most recent common ancestor (MRCA) of all currently living anatomically modern humans, who is estimated to have lived approximately 100,000–200,000 years ago. This is the most recent woman from whom all living humans today descend, on their mother’s side, and through the mothers of those mothers, and so on, back until all lines converge on one person. Because all mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) generally (but see paternal mtDNA transmission) is passed from mother to offspring without recombination, all mtDNA in every living person is directly descended from hers by definition, differing only by the mutations that over generations have occurred in the germ cell mtDNA since the conception of the original "Mitochondrial Eve". "

Note, however, the assertion (with zero proof) that there were other mothers before the mtDNA Eve. This is based on the assumption that the previous mother had only one daughter. This is very unlikely since the population was lower and large families would have been more likely. e.g Genesis 5:4 states Adam and Eve had plural daughters.

Concerning the Y-chromosomal Adam:

Y chromosome analysis moves Adam closer to Eve

A pair of genetic studies has pushed back age of men's most recent common ancestor.

www.sciencenews.org

Y-chromosomal Adam

Y chromosome in descendants of one human male In human genetics, Y chromosomal Adam ( Y MRCA) is the theoretical most recent common ancestor (MRCA) from whom all living people are descended patrilineally (tracing back along the paternal lines of…

enacademic.com

"In human genetics, Y-chromosomal Adam ( Y-MRCA) is the theoretical most recent common ancestor (MRCA) from whom all living people are descended patrilineally (tracing back along the paternal lines of their family tree only)."

Y-chromosomal Adam - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"In human genetics, the Y-chromosomal most recent common ancestor (Y-MRCA, informally known as Y-chromosomal Adam) is the most recent common ancestor (MRCA) from whom all currently living males are descended patrilineally. The term Y-MRCA reflects the fact that the Y chromosomes of all currently living human males are directly derived from the Y chromosome of this remote ancestor. The analogous concept of the matrilineal most recent common ancestor is known as "Mitochondrial Eve" (mt-MRCA, named for the matrilineal transmission of mtDNA), the most recent woman from whom all living humans are descended matrilineally."

“Whether those findings are accurate in every detail or not, they illustrate that the history we find in Genesis is highly credible, being authored by One who was on the scene at the time."

I’m not sure what history you can find in genesis is credible. How does anyone make credible examinations of supernatural events.

Who is the One on the scene who authored genesis?

 

[Newtonian]

No chain of evidence proving 'evolution' is a fact, so no need to keep lying about that to school kids, either, but of course irrational 'rationalists' insist on it.

Well, other than the fossil record.

Rubbish. the fossil record is a few bones scattered over millions of years, of extinct species of apes.

And extinct species of humans as well. Indeed school kids are usually taught evolution. Teaching creationist doctrines would violate the separation of church and state. However, they could teach alternate scientific interpretations instead of implying macro-evolution is proven.

My premise is if they are going to teach the evolution rubbish in science classes as 'facts', then they should also teach some of the better intelligent design theories as well. I'm not a 'creationist', nor am I stupid enough to parrot 'evolution' rubbish just so I can be a member of some treehouse club for tards who obviously have political agendas, not 'scientific' ones or 'rational' ones. It's that simple. My premise is we shouldn't babble about 'evolution' and then also expect kids to buy into empiricism and methodologies after lying so blatantly to them.

There’s no such thing as “better ID / creationism” as it’s just remanufacturing of Christian fundamentalism. The creationist hacks lost their legal battle over teaching creationsm in schools because It was about the Christian religion.The industry of extremist Christians is a part of what we can call "The Amazing Shrinking Creation Model." The earlier attempts by Christian fundamentalists to force Christian creationism into the schools made no effort to conceal the agenda of promoting Biblical literalism. Those efforts were originally titled as "Biblical Creationism" with great candor. Faced with the correct legal conclusions that it was merely religion, they retreated and renamed it "Scientific Creationism," making a half hearted attempt to edit out explicit Biblical references... but that fooled no one. When that met an equally unambiguous decision in the courts, the new version became "Intelligent Design." In the process, the creationist movement has become progressively less candid, more angry, more extremist and frankly more desperate.

Your bias is showing. And we are not creationists - we believe what the Bible and science reveal.

 

[Hollie]

Breezewood - I am not quoting your post - metaphysics is a branch of philosophy - discussed here:

Metaphysics - Problems in metaphysics

Metaphysics - Problems in metaphysics: Although sensations (i.e., the conscious experiences that result from stimulation of the sense organs) are mental events, they seem to most people to be a source of information—fallible, perhaps, but in the main reliable—about a nonmental world, the world...

www.britannica.com

We do not base our beliefs on philosophy - the Bible warns against philosophy:

Colossians 2:8 - New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures
8 Look out that no one takes you captive* by means of the philosophy and empty deception+ according to human tradition, according to the elementary things of the world and not according to Christ;

metaphysics

metaphysical - to be more exact

is the branch of philosophy that examines the fundamental nature of reality, including the relationship between mind and matter, between substance and attribute, and between potentiality and actuality.

substance and attribute - the spiritual composition for a composite physiology.

We do not base our beliefs on philosophy - the Bible warns against philosophy:

Colossians 2:8 - New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures
8 Look out that no one takes you captive* by means of the philosophy and empty deception+ according to human tradition, according to the elementary things of the world and not according to Christ;

the religious itinerant never claimed to be a messiah ... nor disavowed their beliefs, the religion of antiquity.

as pointed out before, the 4th century christian bible is a book of forgeries, a political document disguised as a religion.

Why do you think the Bible was from the 4th century? There are a number of manuscript copies of portions of the Bible dated to well before that - e.g. a Dead Sea Scroll of Isaiah dated to the 2nd century BCE. And the Greek Septuagint translation was produced from the 3rd to 2nd century BCE and we have manuscript copies of LXX (=Septuagint) from before Jesus' time.

There are also papyrus fragments of the Christian Greek Scriptures (aka NT) from the 2nd century CE.

See this article on an early 2nd century papyrus fragment of the book of John:

Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

wol.jw.org

Excerpt:

"Roberts suspected that this papyrus scrap was very old. But how old? To find out, he compared the handwriting on it with other dated ancient manuscripts—a discipline called paleography.* By applying this method, he was able to assign an approximate age. But he wanted to be sure. So he photographed the fragment, sent copies of it to three papyrologists, and asked them to determine its age. What did these experts conclude?

By studying the style of the script and the strokes, all three of the expert scholars agreed that the fragment had been written in the first half of the second century C.E.—just a few decades after the apostle John’s death! Paleography, however, is not a foolproof method of dating manuscripts, and another scholar believes that the text could have been written anytime during the second century. Yet, this tiny scrap of papyrus was—and still is—the oldest existing manuscript fragment of the Christian Greek Scriptures that has ever been found."

The Watchtower doesn’t identify what “experts” viewed the manuscript.

First of all, we do not believe our literature is miraculously inspired or infallible. We are into scientific and Biblical research and both become outdated as new discoveries are made. I have not found any errors in our current website - have you?

www.jw.org

So, how old do you think that manuscript fragment of John is? I will post more documentation shortly.

What scientific research is performed by the JW's?

What manuscript fragment are you referring to? How do paper fragments make a connection to the gods? There are original manuscripts to Homer's iliad but I don't know of anyone who thinks that is a literal rendition of history.

What scientific research - On which branch of scientific research do you wish me to post?

Meanwhile, while waiting for your response, there is the biblography/references in our 2 brochures on the origin of life - I won't post the long list of references - just a link to these reference lists:

Bibliography — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

wol.jw.org

Bibliography — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

wol.jw.org

Let’s start with the biological sciences. What research facilities are maintained by the JW’s? To what peer reviewed journals have the JW’s submitted research data?

I/we do NOT submit research for peer review. We build on the research of other scientists. Of course, some scientists are Jehovah's Witnesses and do research is specific fields - we rarely quote them.

Personally I am a totally independent scientific researcher. Those who submit peer reviewed articles are not totally independent because they seek approval of peers.

If you think peer review is evidence of accuracy, then why are there contradictory articles that have been approved by peers?

Personally, I will not be convinced by the fact that a certain model/theory/postulate is approved by peers. You would actually have to supply proof. Of course, we do quote peer reviewed sources for proof- but the proof is NOT because they are peer reviewed. The proof is in the actual observations by the scientific method. And why have approved models changed over time?

So, for example, if you doubt the above manuscripts are from the 2nd century CE - what evidence or proof can you post to the contrary?

1 Thessalonians 5:21 - "Prove all things" - KJV

I have not and never will publish my research because that introduces the profit motive. Our literature is also free of charge, btw. - we have only truth, not profit, as our incentive.

I was curious about the JW’s being described as a research organization when they do no research.

 

[Hollie]

No chain of evidence proving 'evolution' is a fact, so no need to keep lying about that to school kids, either, but of course irrational 'rationalists' insist on it.

Well, other than the fossil record.

Rubbish. the fossil record is a few bones scattered over millions of years, of extinct species of apes.

And extinct species of humans as well. Indeed school kids are usually taught evolution. Teaching creationist doctrines would violate the separation of church and state. However, they could teach alternate scientific interpretations instead of implying macro-evolution is proven.

My premise is if they are going to teach the evolution rubbish in science classes as 'facts', then they should also teach some of the better intelligent design theories as well. I'm not a 'creationist', nor am I stupid enough to parrot 'evolution' rubbish just so I can be a member of some treehouse club for tards who obviously have political agendas, not 'scientific' ones or 'rational' ones. It's that simple. My premise is we shouldn't babble about 'evolution' and then also expect kids to buy into empiricism and methodologies after lying so blatantly to them.

There’s no such thing as “better ID / creationism” as it’s just remanufacturing of Christian fundamentalism. The creationist hacks lost their legal battle over teaching creationsm in schools because It was about the Christian religion.The industry of extremist Christians is a part of what we can call "The Amazing Shrinking Creation Model." The earlier attempts by Christian fundamentalists to force Christian creationism into the schools made no effort to conceal the agenda of promoting Biblical literalism. Those efforts were originally titled as "Biblical Creationism" with great candor. Faced with the correct legal conclusions that it was merely religion, they retreated and renamed it "Scientific Creationism," making a half hearted attempt to edit out explicit Biblical references... but that fooled no one. When that met an equally unambiguous decision in the courts, the new version became "Intelligent Design." In the process, the creationist movement has become progressively less candid, more angry, more extremist and frankly more desperate.

Your bias is showing. And we are not creationists - we believe what the Bible and science reveal.

There was no bias about the history of Christian fundamentalists attempting to put religion into the public school system. The Dover trial reaffirmed that.

The courts have ruled consistently that creationism is a religious claim.

Ten Major Court Cases about Evolution and Creationism | National Center for Science Education

1. In 1968, in Epperson v. Arkansas, the United States Supreme Court invalidated an Arkansas statute that prohibited the teaching of evolution. The Court held the statute unconstitutional on the grounds that the First Amendment to the U.S.

ncse.ngo

 

[BreezeWood]

Breezewood - I am not quoting your post - metaphysics is a branch of philosophy - discussed here:

Metaphysics - Problems in metaphysics

Metaphysics - Problems in metaphysics: Although sensations (i.e., the conscious experiences that result from stimulation of the sense organs) are mental events, they seem to most people to be a source of information—fallible, perhaps, but in the main reliable—about a nonmental world, the world...

www.britannica.com

We do not base our beliefs on philosophy - the Bible warns against philosophy:

Colossians 2:8 - New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures
8 Look out that no one takes you captive* by means of the philosophy and empty deception+ according to human tradition, according to the elementary things of the world and not according to Christ;

metaphysics

metaphysical - to be more exact

is the branch of philosophy that examines the fundamental nature of reality, including the relationship between mind and matter, between substance and attribute, and between potentiality and actuality.

substance and attribute - the spiritual composition for a composite physiology.

We do not base our beliefs on philosophy - the Bible warns against philosophy:

Colossians 2:8 - New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures
8 Look out that no one takes you captive* by means of the philosophy and empty deception+ according to human tradition, according to the elementary things of the world and not according to Christ;

the religious itinerant never claimed to be a messiah ... nor disavowed their beliefs, the religion of antiquity.

as pointed out before, the 4th century christian bible is a book of forgeries, a political document disguised as a religion.

As I documented above, the Bible is not from the 4th century - the Nicene Creed is though.

Jesus did claim to be the Messiah/Christ/anointed one. You might want to research that.

Jesus did claim to be the Messiah/Christ/anointed one. You might want to research that.

late 1st century - through 2nd no one believed that then the crucifiers began taking over culminating in the 4th century, using that entire century they wrote their christian bible ...

simply because it is absurd - did he appear as your creatures did during the cambrian period - then disappear after leaving their indisputable message - no. they were born, grew up - theirs is highlighted in the christian bible is the claim to fame, not theirs those that wrote the story.

jesus was crucified holding to his beliefs, the religion of antiquity - not of hopeless sinners needing a master - the opposite and true significance of the 1st century.

by the way, the cambrian period lasted 56 million years.