by tornapart 427 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
I think that Tornapart is asking for genuine reasons, and this is a topic that people feel very strongly about on this board. It's good to talk about it in a reasonable way- bravo to those that are doing that.
@Tornapart - The answers are out there and you don't have to be afraid of what they might be- you are a smart person and have already broken out of the WT mindest and come so far...Me so proud of u!
Read Jerry A. Coyne, Why Evolution Is True
it will help explain the details.
you expect me to believe that from 500,000 years to 10,000 years the population didn't grow at all?
No science doesn't ask to to believe anything. Do research, gather the evidence and reach your conclusion.
Don't ask for help and then dismiss answers without doing the hard work to confirm whether they are factual.
nvm
Cofty, I'm not asking for help and I'm not dismissing answers. I'm merely interested to find out what others think and expressing what I think, that's all. It doesn't mean that I'm not going to continue finding the answers for myself.
Since I discovered TTATT my head has been full of questions and I've been reading all sorts of different things on various subjects. I come across books or articles alluded to on here and spend hours reading them. It's just that the more I read the more questions there are. About everything!
I just thought this was an intriguing question when I stumbled across something and wanted to know what you guys had to say about it.
Since no one person now living was there, even the greatest scientific minds of our time, we have no idea what really happened or how many people were REALLY alive back then.
Tornapart, how dare you approach our resident panel of experts with your petty questionings?!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTKybiHJBKA
Cofty said, " No science doesn't ask to to believe anything. Do research, gather the evidence and reach your conclusion. " Well said.
Tornapart, it’s a good question. I’m a Christian still, and except evolution as true now but didn’t when I was a witness, so I understand, I think, where your question comes from.
From an evolutionary point of view, species normally reach equilibrium with their environment. It’s a like an arms race between the species and other organisms around and the environment. Normally this equilibrium is stable but can get out of balance for the good or bad of the species. Most of the time it is quite stable though. The longer the time frame ones looks at the ups and downs of the stability the more obvious it will look. When some organisms for example mutates, it may have an advantage as with bacteria or viruses. They might be able to inhabit humans where they could not before when our immune system was adapted to them, and many in a population can die. A few will normally survive because all humans are a little bit different from one another and the population will increase again, but this time with the inherited difference a few survivors had spread to all their descendants and so the process repeats. This is but one of many things that impact on human reproduction. The result is that human populations were quite stable in the past. This was also the case before humans became human, and after, even though there was no magic line to cross that meant human from natures view point.
It is important to note that with any arms race, one side as it were, will never greatly outsmart the enemy so to speak. This means that the likelihood of population increase to any great degree is limited by all the surrounding forces that kill off people and offspring. Occasionally an environmental or biological development will occur that kicks stability off into the negative side of things, and extinction or near extintion can happen. The superior forces won as it were. However the positive side of imbalance can happen as it did will human beings when we started to develop medicine and farming. In very recent times both faming and medicine have been greatly boosted by science, the roots of which are about 2 or 3 thousand years old. This is why humans have now become so numerous.
If all this is correct it makes a prediction or two. That prediction is that nature should be trying to close the gap between our advantages we have through science to survive, because the forces of nature are the other side of an arms race and natures every changing lifeforms and environments. This prediction is born out and we see it in many ways, not least in the world of disease caused by bacteria and viruses. Aids is a very real and relatively new threat, along with the fact that antibiotics are not working as they once did. Bacteria is becoming immune to them. So the arms race continues but before science, humans had no advantage to positively increase over and above equilibrium. Another prediction of all this is that a few humans should be immune to big threatening diseases that come along, like aids for example. The bigger the population the more likely this is to be the case, and this has been observed in a few individuals who survive aids and are not infected by it long term. If it were not for science, aids and many other biological type threats would have wiped out all humans except for those special individuals who were naturally immune, and from them a new generation with that immunity would have sprung, and this is how it worked until relativity recently. Intelligence and science are such powerful advantages if they are continually used, that the human advantage may now never completely be equalised by nature’s arms race. I hope my little article was helpful to you.
Tornapart,
I'm with you on this.
Folks heavily invested in a bad ideas, when they hit a speed bump (awkward inquiry clearly exposing their difficulty) they get defensive and wobbly.
It's the JW syndrome all over again: challenge our turf and we will find ways to silence you.
Galileo had the identical experience.
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Fascinating!
@Seraphim23
evolutionary point of view… It’s a like an arms race.
Genetics is not like an arms race.
QC, is it not? Do you not except evolution?
Torn apart lol, love it, you are brave, heh heh
but now you mention it i have also wondered .... hang on, if man has been on this earth for like 1 million years (whatever) why is it only in the past 10,000 yrs they have moved out of caves and onward towards civilisation ?
Look at the massive changes in the last 100 yrs alone, heck no, take the last 30 yrs, technology, phones, pc's, www internet. ?
I find it very hard to belief the actual evolution THEORY that a bunch of men preach as hard evidenc fact.
I read all of the Clan of the Cave bear books by Jean.M. Auel and they were fascinating.
As you have seen torn, you will get jumped on and beaten into wubmission and silence if you don't agree with the resident expert scientists who spent their lives working out in the 'field' of archeology and discovery. Which is consistently changing, and which is consistently throwing up new things, consistently views have had to be changed when 'new evidence' comes to light which factually disporoves the old evidence, but hey, that was preached as fact fact fact for years.
Example, a simple one. Neanderthal man, big changes now in what they preaching.
But how dare you ask questions you silly fool, go and read a book. Oh, you know I forgot, even the information contained in books has changed to. society changes is, it is exponential. Like technology.
And as we have all learned, for a fact, we can trust man can't we, he heh.
Hey panda how you doing, I love that pic.
QC yep, you got that right. All they are doing in stifling discussion and bullying people, so they are afraid to ask or state they opinions. Control, control - hmmmmmmmmm
