Coded Logic

Joined

• started 181 topics
• posted 1,465 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by Coded Logic

• 
  13

  A Thought Experiment

  by InjusticeSystem in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i am hoping some of you may be up for participating in a little creative thought experiment .

  the question i would like to pose (and if it has already been asked i apologize, for some reason i cannot search for topics on my mobile) is this: what would the evidence show if the jehovah's witness' literal reading of genesis was true?

  i realize that is a fairly broad question, but for example a more pointed question could be: if the vapor canopy hypothesis is correct (i have confirmed with my elder father that this is still a currently accepted understanding), what evidence in our genome or that of other creatures or on earth would we expect to see?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Coded Logic

  Here are just a few things we could expect and some links showing how they're demonstrably wrong:

  1.) We would expect every humans mitochondrial DNA to share a common ancestor around 6000 years ago. And we would expect to see this in the Y chromosome as well. Instead, we see our common ancestors being much older than that. In fact, we have to go back 150,000 years before we all share the same grandmother.

  http://io9.gizmodo.com/5878996/how-mitochondrial-eve-connected-all-humanity-and-rewrote-human-evolution

  https://www.genome.gov/27555170
  

  2.) We wouldn't expect humans and apes to share any endogenous retrovirus. Instead, we share at least 19.

  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2001186/
  

  http://www.evolutionarymodel.com/ervs.htm
  

  3.) We wouldn't expect any Bristlecone Pine trees to predate the biblical flood (2304 B.C.). Instead, we see some of these trees that were supposedly under miles water for 370 days predating the flood by 500 years.

  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methuselah_(tree)

  4.) We would expect there to be no written records of the Sumerians, Egyptians, Romans, Grecians, Chinese, etc. before 2304 B.C. In fact, we would expect them to have no cultural history before that time at all. Instead, we see records of their societies forming long before the flood and continuing for thousands of years after the flood.

  https://eprints.soas.ac.uk/3139/1/PAGE_31-71.pdf

  http://www.omniglot.com/writing/egyptian.htm

  http://www.ancient-origins.net/ancient-writings-ancient-places-europe/dispilio-tablet-oldest-known-written-text-00913
  

  http://www.lib.cam.ac.uk/mulu/oracle.html

  5.) We wouldn't expect humans to have any atavisms or vestiges. Instead, we're chock full of them.

  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_vestigiality

  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3014134/

  http://www.bio.miami.edu/dana/dox/atavistic.html

  6.) As birds were made on the fifth day and land animals weren't made until the sixth day we wouldn't expect to find any land animals in the fossil record before birds.

  The evidence here is so common and overwhelming I won't bother posting any links. Birds don't show up until the late Cretaceous Period (about 65 million years ago). This would mean that we shouldn't see any land animals (like dinosaurs) before then. But that's not the case at all. We find them far earlier in the Jurassic Period (145 million years ago) and even earlier than that in the Triassic Period (200 million years ago). We also see other land animals (like amphibians and reptiles) living before long before dinosaurs in the Carboniferous Period (300 million years ago).

  The idea that birds came before land animals is one of the most obvious blunders of the Genesis account. If the story is meant to be literal - then it's literally wrong. If it's metaphorical - then it gets the metaphor wrong.
• 
  62

  Richard Carrier debunks Christianity using Science and History.

  by Island Man in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ez2kgjk4jo4

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Coded Logic

  I don't think it's particularly rational or reasonable to say the human mind is the ultimate source of all truth.
  - SBF

  (strawman argument)

  Who's saying the human mind is the "ultimate" source of truth? I feel like you're just making up straw man positions so you can attack them instead of dealing with the real issues being raised on this thread.

  Truth is the label we apply to claims that match reality. Individual claims are either true or they are not true. When you say "ultimate truth" no one knows what you're talking about.

  This would be like me making up some non-existent problem and then trying to use it to disprove Yahweh, "God can't account for Intrinsic Theocracy therefore all beliefs in God are self refuting."

  Either the human mind is the product of undirected evolution, in which case there is no reason to suppose it has a particular capacity for identifying truth. Or else the human mind is the result of divine direction

  (false dichotomy)

  Having the ability to process information is hugely beneficial to living organisms. No supernatural appeals required. Creatures that understand their environments have a distinct advantage over creatures that don't understand their environment. Wolves that know how to can track a herd of bison are going to fare better than the wolves that can't track the herd of bison and/or that do so incorrectly.

  Thus wolves that have a better understanding of reality are more likely to raise offspring. And more likely to pass on that ability. Whereas the wolves that don't understand reality as well are less likely to raise offspring and less likely to spread their genes.

  
  
• 
  133

  What are the biggest holes in evolution?

  by shadow in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  how honest are the proponents of evolution?

  idk but curious to see what type of response there is on a topic like this or does their study only seek to confirm their preconceptions and ignore uncomfortable facts?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Coded Logic

  or does their study only seek to confirm their preconceptions

  I'm sorry, but this must be one of the absolute stupidest things you could say on this forum. Almost every single person on here used to reject evolution. Our preconception was that evolution was FALSE!

  It was only because of evidence based arguments that we changed our minds!

  And I really don't know what to say here, it's like someone asking me, "What are the holes in the theory of gravity?"

  "What are the holes in Atomic Theory?"

  "What are the holes in Cell Theory?"

  As far as I know, there aren't any holes in any of these. Or in evolution. And if I could find a hole in any of them, I would write a peer reviewed paper on it and win myself a Noble Prize!
• 
  30

  Original Sin / Salvation without a literal Adam and Eve?

  by Coded Logic in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  something i've never understood is if adam and eve are just metaphorical where did "original sin" come from.

  and, if there was no original sin, what is the value of jesus sacrifice?.

  i know a lot of christians believe in evolution but i've never understood how such a belief is structured.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Coded Logic

  Something I've never understood is if Adam and Eve are just metaphorical where did "original sin" come from. And, if there was no original sin, what is the value of Jesus sacrifice?

  I know a lot of Christians believe in evolution but I've never understood how such a belief is structured. My personal experience might be a little different as I didn't accept evolution until after I realized the Bible was something I couldn't justify believing as "divinely inspired".

  Not looking to debate anyone on this thread - just genuinely curious if anyone on here is a Christian and also accepts evolution and/or doesn't believe in a literal Adam and Eve. Would be much obliged if you could share your thoughts on the issue.
• 
  31

  The GB know it's all lies and wants to dismantle the WTS ... then what?

  by Simon in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  so imagine the gb have a sudden attack of honesty and realize "crap, this whole thing is lies - we're not god's spokespeople at all !".

  how do you dismantle a religion that has +8 million members in a responsible way?

  you can't just publish a watchtower saying "we were wrong" because that would be irresponsible - you need to let people down gently, put people off gradually.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Coded Logic

  This would be a fairly simple problem to solve. Over the course of a couple of years they could phase out the term F&DS and slowly stop being so authoritarian about everything. The second step would be to hand over more power to individual congregations and make almost everything a "conscience matter". The final phase would be shutting down the various headquarters, retiring the organisational name "Watchtower", and having each Kingdom Hall operate with autonomy under the umbrella term of "Jehovah's Witnesses" much like the the Methodists Church does.

  http://www.umc.org/who-we-are/constitutional-structure
• 
  42

  What I thought CLAM meant , can you think of anymore ?

  by smiddy in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  for a while there i was confused as to what clam stood for .. ideas that crossed my mind .

  christ left a ministry , or meeting .

  children`s lives are mine .....( pedo`s in the borg ).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Coded Logic

  Contemporary Lies for the Absent Minded
  

  Calculated Lunacy and Astounding Madness

  Convoluted and (over)Lapping Apocalyptic Malarky

  or maybe it's another way of talking about elders? - Clueless Lackys who Arrogantly Manage

  
  
• 
  67

  Is proselytizing less condescending when evolutionists do it?

  by paul from cleveland in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  is it just me?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Coded Logic

  Crofty,

  You're arrogance is truly astounding, how dare you use verifiable facts and multiple lines of evidence to support your conclusions - all the while propagating informed opinions and making an effort to understand the necessary principles at hand on any given topic. Why the gull! The nerve!

  First it starts with evolution - next thing we know you'll be promoting science!!! DOES YOUR DEBAUCHERY KNOW NO BOUNDS?!!!
• 
  14

  Conversation with a Biblical scholar - Richard Dawkins

  by CookieMonster in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  quite interesting when you look at the bible objectively and the historical records.

  it highlights the problems of using the bible as authoritative and validation of history.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lxcutg0lvr0.

  spoiler: didn't know that the immanuel prophecy attributed to jesus as being born from a virgin is actually a mistranslation.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Coded Logic

  Slimboyfat,

  I'm not sure if it's a miscommunication issue on my part or if you're just being obtuse but let's give it one more try shall we? You made the claim:

  This professor says the names Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were not applied to the gospels in the manuscript tradition before the mid-fourth century.

  Plain and simple, the professor did NOT say this nor did he remotely imply it. He even went so far as to specifically point out that, for the Gospel of John, we have a late second century manuscript that includes the name. No one here is saying that the early manuscripts lacked these titles.

  You attacking this guy for a position he doesn't hold.

  More importantly, the reason the Gospels are "anonymous" is because the names were never meant to establish authorship. Rather, they were place holders to tell the narratives apart.

  We know this for several reasons:

  1.) The Greek preposition κατά (speculative - "handed down", "according to") is used to identify the Gospels instead of a proper genitive case that would imply an author's ownership or identity.

  2.) None of the Gospels identify the Author's in the body of the work which was common practice at the time.

  3.) The Gospels are written in the 3rd person instead of being first hand accounts.

  4.) When the Gospels are quoted by early writers (Ignatius, Polycarp, Justin Martyr, etc.) they never use the Gospel names.

  5.) It's highly unlikely that a fisherman (John) and a tollbooth collector (Matthew) would be literate. Even worse, as Galileans, they spoke Aramaic. Not the Greek the books are written in.
• 
  14

  Conversation with a Biblical scholar - Richard Dawkins

  by CookieMonster in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  quite interesting when you look at the bible objectively and the historical records.

  it highlights the problems of using the bible as authoritative and validation of history.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lxcutg0lvr0.

  spoiler: didn't know that the immanuel prophecy attributed to jesus as being born from a virgin is actually a mistranslation.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Coded Logic

  It's a bit disconcerting when an "expert" makes such a jarring factual error. This professor says the names Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were not applied to the gospels in the manuscript tradition before the mid-fourth century. That is plain wrong.

  Wow SBF, that would be a major error on the Professor's part . . . IF you were right.

  But you're not. Dawkins asked him when the names were added and he said, "The bulk of the Gospels - in terms of the manuscript tradition - you have to go all the way into the fourth century." (16:50)

  This is an accurate statement. The vast majority of manuscripts did not have the names attached. The paper you cite even goes on to explain that we have only one manuscript from the 2nd century with the name John attached to it. And, for the other Gospels, we never see the names attached until the 3rd century. But the point made is these manuscripts with names were the exceptions. Not the tradition.

  It's not until the 4th century before we start seeing the names being applied to the Gospels with any regularity.
• 
  11

  Are you related to me?

  by Coded Logic in

  1. social
  2. current

  the chances that anyone on this forum is my biological brother or sister, purely from a statistical point of view, is rather low.

  but how many generations back would we have to go to have a fair chance that one of my ancestors married one of your ancestors (or procreated anyway)?.

  i was born in 1985. less than 20 years before my birth my two parents were being conceived by a combined 4 parents of their own.. and if we go back even further, to 40 years before my birth, then i'll find an additional 8 ancestors.. around the 60 year mark i have another 16 ancestors.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Coded Logic

  The chances that anyone on this forum is my biological brother or sister, purely from a statistical point of view, is rather low. But how many generations back would we have to go to have a fair chance that one of my ancestors married one of your ancestors (or procreated anyway)?

  I was born in 1985. Less than 20 years before my birth my two parents were being conceived by a combined 4 parents of their own.

  And if we go back even further, to 40 years before my birth, then I'll find an additional 8 ancestors.

  Around the 60 year mark I have another 16 ancestors

  80 years back gives me an additional 32 ancestors

  And so on

  . . .

  By the time I've gone back to the year 1545 I would expect to have around 8.3 million LIVING relatives. Only 50 years after Columbus had discovered North America more people alive were grandparents to me than are currently active publishers with the Watchtower today. Just 22 generations back . . . 22 conceptions and births and surely one of my ancestors would have witnessed Martin Luther's separation from the Catholic Church. Or would have served under King Henry the VIII. Just 22 generations ago.

  So, are you related to me? Well of course - we're all related. But we probably don't have to go back the thousands or tens of thousands of years we might expect to find our common ancestry. Perhaps 500 years ago one of my 8 million living relatives married one of your 8 million living relatives.

  Chances are none of you here are my biological brother or sister. But there's a pretty good chance you're my cousin from the last millennium.

  http://io9.gizmodo.com/5791530/why-humans-all-much-more-related-than-you-think