by AGuest 125 Replies latest jw friends
I was kinda hoping to see a tec abbadon battle of wits - but I guess not
(curtains who loves games)
enitrely possible
You might want to check your divine receptor for hearing. You claimed the things you hear from your Lord were always right, however, on no less that 3 occasions said your Lord Jemimah Maple Syrup told you things about me that were 100% incorrect. |
I have also been on the receiving end on more than one occasion - it seems the lord only tells shelby what she wants to hear
AGuest Yep, I hear you. Just change the words quoted below and see what happens
"Proper science recognizes that new data will cause old data to be thrown away. Darwin was huge, but a guy in the 19th century at the infancy of discovering evidence of evolution was bound to be wrong on many things. Same with many other theories along the way."
"But this find only serves to show that evolution is true, we just don't know all the facts."
OR
The Governing Body recognizes that new data will cause old data to be thrown away. Russell was huge, but a guy in the 19th century at the infancy of discovering evidence of the end times was bound to be wrong on many things. Same with many other theories along the way.
But this find only serves to show that we are living in the end times is true, we just don't know all the facts.
tec
without any thought as to why she and her son are important to god and the rest of the dying babies worldwide are not (is god really that big a shit?), or that maybe she was lucky and other parents doing the same KILL their kids.I don't understand how you come to this conclusion from the story? God didn't take away her son's 'illness'. He didn't have the illness that the doctors diagnosed him with to begin with.
She claimed some form of divine inspiration, and as told in the OP make it look like she refused medical treatment because of voices in her head/beliefs (religious beliefs are based on 'voices in our head' that we simply don't conceptualise as such).
As she actually did seek alternative (as in different not as in herbal tea), the fact I am right saying that if she did refuse medical treatment because of voices in her head/beliefs this it would be wrong, is moot.
Shelby
May you all have peace! Sorry, but I've caught a fairly decent cold (or something) and was kind of "down for the count" yesterday. Rather than go back a couple/few pages, though, I'll start here, if that's okay (unless, of course, I miss something someone wants me to specifically respond to, which I will be more than happy to do). Dear Abaddon, I realize you're addressing dear tec (peace to you, both!), but I think I can probably answer your... ummmmm... questions... just a tad bit better than she (if that's okay with you both, of course). I have to warn you, though: you asked for it, so it's a bit long. Now, then:
Tec Re. your comment about attribution; AGuest wrote those words HERSELF in the OP, and later claimed there were a verbatim quote from the programme.My apologies. I thought it was clear from what I posted that it was from the program. Again, I stated that I was personally surprised at what was stated. Please, by ALL means, find the program (it was on "Nova") and view it for yourself. I could not remember the name of the specific scientist/archeologist/paleontologist who made the statement, so I didn't put it in quotes. But it did indeed come from the program, from the statement made by a scientist/archeologist/paleontologist... which reference to what other scientists/archeologists/paleontologists know. There was/is no benefit in me stating that someone said something they didn't, dear Abaddon: the program is viewable by anyone and I KNOW someone here would have called me on it if I were lying. So...
Shelby; the text:
"... several scientist/anthropologist/paleontologist admissions that there is actually very little known about... and in evidence to support... evolution."
... from your OP is not uttered in the programme, the trailers, or appears in written form anywhere other than here. You may believe this is a fair summary of the programme. You are wrong.
It does not reach that conclusion regarding evolution, and the only doubts about human evolution are whether the 'out-of-Africa' theory that the evidence has (in the scientific consensus) supported so far may now need modification due to NEW EVIDENCE. Yah know, bones in the ground or genetics, not someone saying they hear god in their head.
The programme does not doubt evolutionary theory in general or more specifically:
Whether there were more local regional varients like neaderthal is interesting, but does not mean "actually very little known about... and in evidence to support... evolution."
You were being misleading (intentionally or otherwise).
That is what I take issue with. If a student at my University did that, they would receive a Fail and have a case of minor infringement of the rules on citation and referencing noted on their file. No, this is not University, but if someone is having a discussion about science then getting their facts right is kind of a good idea.This isn't university, though, is it?
Said that, but pointed out in a scientific argument it helps being precise and having your facts straight. Having a scientific argument with you is like teaching a duck algebra. It's not that you are stupid (ducks are not stupid, they are very good at being ducks, but they don't get algebra) , it's just you haven't studied enough, nor or willing to accept you may be wrong in your interpretation of scientic material.
If you can't read French well, and make out a document say X when it says Y, and someone who speaks the language points out your mistake, do you refuse to listen? No, but science, you is a science Ninja, lol.
Re. your comment about forms of evidence; we are talking about scientific evidence, which anything spiritual lacks. Thus me borrowing the legal term of hear-say to highlight this. Doesn't mean I am couching the rest of my argument in legal terms though, as were talking science, not law.
Oh, now, wait. You think others should conform to "university" standards when sharing info, but you're immune from the same standard in a legal format? You can borrow a legal term in one instance, but don't need to "couch the rest of [your] argument" in legal terms? Can you spell "hypocrisy"? Do you know what that means? It means holding others to a standard you won't even hold yourself to. Do you SEE?
Ooo... caps, lol. Miss the point why don't you. Maybe 'anecdotal' would have been better and avoid using a legal term (although one could quite easily use the term heresay in a scientific paper, as it perfectly describes spiritual evidence; those it happens to can only tell you about it, and whilst sincere they may be wrong. But you miss actually responding to the point (you are very good at this falacious technique) - there is no proof of spirital claims in the way there is of scientific ones.
Your detailed version of events makes clear what happened; given you claim to hear god in your head, you saying you withheld medical treatment would not be surprising which is why I believed what you intially said. And it is in fact true:
I couldn't allow it and there could be no blood in the operating room.
Based on a voice in your head. You actions delayed treatment. Reimagine it, but your words to the medical staff were 'no blood', not 'you can give my son whatever he needs to get well, but I don't believe he has cancer and want a second opinion'. Sorry you cannot see the difference.
In the end you got alternative treatment. And they were wrong, which they only found out when they operated.
Shelby, the original health providers would have found out they were wrong when they operated, and done it far sooner, putting your son through less. Your delay was the cause of your son having convulsions - his temperature would not have got as high if he was operated on earlier.
You can justify this with your voices in the head, to yourself, but no wonder the Dr tried to get a court order given your postion of "I couldn't allow it and there could be no blood in the operating room."
And you tell it like it is a good thing...
You seem to think a scientific opinion or medical opinion is somehow certain; how can they be when they are based on knowledge and evidnence?
Diagnoses get changed if different symptoms (evidence) are found, or evidence found in samples, or new (even if it is old it was new to them) knowledge applied. Scientific theories get changed if new evidence is sound or knowledge applied (like genetic was applied to existing eolvutionary theory). This is how thy work and why they are different to religious 'new light' which is based upon someone claiming god talks to them in some way, directly or indirectly.
Imagined, no. Divine, I believe so.
Yeah, most people who hear voices in their head believe this; they have different opinions to you, oft times. Does each person who hears god in their head have a different god Shelby. I think so... but not one that exisits out of their head.
You are only partially correct. I did not have to think as to why I/my son are important to JAH; I believed we were. Not more or less than anyone else, per se, as I have NEVER thought of myself/my household in relation to anyone else. Never have... never do.
No, so maybe if you actually do and ponder what that means in the larger scheme of things (i.e. why Shelby's babys lives because she hears god's voice and others die), you will see the possible implications.
Abaddon, a Slave to the Rhythm
If anyone here wants to understand WHY science is "wrong" and gets updated, read this entry in Bad Astronomy. I have included relevant portions below.
12 Year Old Thinks He Can Prove Einstein Wrong
I first saw it at Time magazine’s site, with the headline "12-Year-Old Genius Expands Einstein’s Theory of Relativity, Thinks He Can Prove It Wrong".
Barnett may very well be a genius, and may very well rewrite a lot of physics… as, no doubt, future generations of genius scientists will. But one thing they won’t do is prove relativity wrong.
Bold statement? Not really. We know relativity is right. It may be incomplete, but it’s not wrong.
What I mean by this isn’t too hard to understand. In science (ideally, if you’ll pardon the pun), an idea becomes a hypothesis, a testable statement. If it passes the test, it can be expanded upon, broadened, tested and retested. Eventually, as it grows and becomes more solid, it becomes a theory — I know, in the general jargon that word means "guess", but to a scientist a theory is an explanation of phenomena so profoundly certain that a layperson would call it a law.
Relativity is just such a theory. It has passed essentially every single test to which it has been put for the past century. It is literally tested millions of times a day in particle accelerators, for example.
As I wrote in a post on relativity and geocentrism:
Relativity is one of the most well-tested and thoroughly solid ideas in all of science for all time. It is literally tested millions of times a day in particle accelerators. We see it in every cosmological observation, every star that explodes in the sky, every time a nuclear power plant generates even an iota of energy. Heck, without relativity your GPS wouldn’t work.
Relativity is so solid, in fact, that anyone who denies it outright at this point can be charitably called a kook.
So I don’t think anyone, young Jacob Barnett or otherwise, will ever prove relativity to be wrong. What they might do, what I think and hope someone eventually will do, is show how it’s incomplete.
Put it this way: Isaac Newton formulated his Universal Law of Gravitation, and it revolutionized physics and astronomy, allowing us to apply math to the thorny issue of gravity. Newton’s Law is still valid today, four centuries later. However, it’s limited to a regime where masses are small and velocities low. If you want to calculate the Moon’s effect on Earth, Newton is the way to go. We still use his basic equations to plot the trajectories of our spacecraft, and they ply the solar system’s gravitational pathways with incredible precision.
But when you start to approach the speed of light, or deal with masses that are very large, Newton’s math breaks down. It doesn’t work.
Einstein fixed that. His Theory of Relativity uses far more complex math that can deal with these large velocities and masses, and get you the correct answers. When you look at Einstein’s equations for low velocities and small masses, they simplify right down to what Newton wrote. Newton wasn’t wrong, he was incomplete.
Einstein added to Newton, made the math more accurate. The thing is, we know relativity is incomplete right now. In the realm of the very, very small, relativity has some issues with quantum mechanics. QM is just as solid as relativity as theories go. Atomic bombs make that clear, as well as digital camera, electronics in general, and on and on. Obviously, one or both of QM and relativity are incomplete.
Again, we know they are not wrong — not like creationism is wrong, or astrology and Geocentrism are wrong, in that they don’t explain anything and all the evidence is against them — but just that we don’t know everything about them yet. There may be some bigger idea, some broader concept that unifies them, and reduces to either one if you use the right conditions, just as relativity reduces to Newton’s law in certain circumstances.
I am very much looking forward to seeing what Barnett can do in the next few years. If he can garner the insight and the imagination needed to marry QM and relativity, to unite these two seemingly immiscible fields, then I will happily cheer him on as he accepts his Nobel Prize. But that’s a whole different ballgame than proving it wrong.
Discovery Magazine has a very interesting article about human evolution this month - it includes information about the "hobbitt" species.
I am guilty of not reading the whole thread, so may cover stuff already done to death.
It struck me from Shelby's OP that she suffers from one or two ideas that are not correct. One that science is a belief system.It is not. And two that it should be in possesion of absolute truth and full knowledge and never change.
Those of us who take an interest in matters scientific, do not "trust" what scientists tell us in the sense of it must be spot-on coz a Scientist said it.
In fact when someone comes out with a sensational cliaim I wish to see that claim put to the test before I get excited.
But if an expert in his/her field who has studied all the evidence, had that evidence tested and peer reviewed, makes a statement I tend to respect their view, but am more than happy to see it overturned by more evidence.
Science would cease to progress unless people were prepared to challenge the status quo.
As to the evidence for Evolution, if there is so little, how come any half-decent museum is stuffed full of it ?
Take a visit to one or two dear Shelby, and tell us there is a paucity of evidence.
Human evolution too, is not in doubt.
Another mis-understanding is that a Scientific Theory is called that because it is awaiting its time to be proven. Hypothesis is what needs proving.
"Theory" is used to show that new knowledge will change the way we look at the subject, it is never a closed book,but it is not in doubt, it is not awaiting validation. Perhaps we should use the word "Theorem" then people would perhaps undestand, theory is used so loosely in common parlance, and means an idea without proof, a bit like the Christians "faith" in the existence of God.
Nice post!
Shelby i have only just seen your reply, as i scrolled down i overshot your post! The greatest love and peace to you to.
That's really amazing that he didn't suffer a cold for twelve years! Although it's really not good that the TB id dormant and could flare up. I will pray that our Lord keeps him safe. I have no faith in science either. Doctors have told me some tall tales to.
Peace
Dear Watersprout,
I have no faith in science either, faith being trust without evidence.
doctors are not gods or elders. we don't have to accept what they say as gospel truth. (edit an important recent revelation for me)
They are simply experts in their field. A lot of what they seek to diagnose and treat relies on investigative procedures. And if I disagree with a doctor I will say so and ask for explanation. the doctor will then explain (if he has not already done so) that his findings are based on preliminary investigations and that these findings suggest certain conclusions in his expert opinion but that he will only know for sure once he has carried out more investigative/treatment procedures.
At the same time parents are experts on their children, I know I am. My intuitions about their state of health is often spot on. I did not have as much of this confidence in my relationship with my children when I believed in God.
