AuldSoul

Joined

• started 197 topics
• posted 6,104 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by AuldSoul

• 
  365

  Richard Dawkins Gets "Expelled" by Ben Stein!

  by Perry in

  1. watchtower
  2. scandals

  i just got back from seeing the new movie release "expelled" which is a documentary exposing the militant culture of supression regarding intelligent design in the scientific community.

  in a "million years", i never would have imagined that ben stein could get the author of "the god delusion", richard dawkins to speak favorably about i.d.

  (intellignet design).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  AuldSoul

  inrainbows: It is also predicted by evolutionary theory. Did you know that?

  Of course I knew that. It was predicted by evolutionary theory and is now supported by defining what constitutes a species such that over 1,000 "species" of cichlid fish have been identified in a single lake!

  It seems quite dramatic until you remind yourself they are ALL cichlid fish, despite their many, many variations within species.

  Just because evolutionary theory predicts it does not mean evolutionary theory has met its burden of proof. Without being able to demonstrate the mechanics of one thing becoming another thing, I cannot credit extraspecial evolution as having been scientifically proved. I don't actively disbelieve it any more than atheists must actively disbelieve God. There is proof of micro evolution. There is no proof of macro evolution, there is only belief that it MUST have happened. Not as a terribly rare occurrence, at that.

  The response from dyed-in-the-wool evolutionists has consistently been, "It is happening all the time, it is just happening so incrementally that it escapes notice!" If this is true and has always been true, the incremental nature of speciation would be PLAINLY evident . . . in the fossil record. Unfortunately, it is not, which gave rise to several theories hopeful of explaining this glaring absence. If this constant process is a relatively new development and such speciation was more abrupt in the past than it is today, macro evolutionists will just have to wait for another abruption to prove their case to me, won't they?

  However, the Lesser Black-backed Gulls and Herring Gull are sufficiently different that they do not normally interbreed . . .

  Two distinct forms of Ensatina salamanders, differing dramatically in color, coexist in southern California and interbreed there only rarely.

  "Cannot" and "do not normally" or "only rarely" are vastly different things, are they not. In fact, one site you offered candidly admitted:

  Since we can learn so much from ring species, it is unfortunate that few examples are known. At least 23 cases have been proposed, but most of them are not such clear examples as the salamanders and warblers.

  The salamanders remained salamanders. The Greenish Warblers remained Greenish Warblers. They are not genetically incompatible with the other distinctive social group of the same species any more than a male member of an African pygmy tribe could not have successfully mated with a female the socially VERY distinct South American cultures Cortez encountered. Such a union would have been incredibly unlikely to be appealing to either party, for social and aesthetic reasons, but was not genetically impossible.

  In other words, the BEST examples you have produced are empty. We "can learn so much from" ring species that we already know from observing the poor interactivity between humans societies that are or were isolated from each other for long periods of time. Are the pygmy tribes human? If they refused to mate with whites would that be proof of speciation? Of course not.

  Respectfully,
  AuldSoul
• 
  365

  Richard Dawkins Gets "Expelled" by Ben Stein!

  by Perry in

  1. watchtower
  2. scandals

  i just got back from seeing the new movie release "expelled" which is a documentary exposing the militant culture of supression regarding intelligent design in the scientific community.

  in a "million years", i never would have imagined that ben stein could get the author of "the god delusion", richard dawkins to speak favorably about i.d.

  (intellignet design).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  AuldSoul

  Auldsoul, all you have to do is do a google search for 'examples of speciation'. Finches, Cichlid fish, insects, there's plenty there.

  I did. Finches remained finches. Fruit flies remained fruit flies. Each of many different beetles remained the sort of beetle it began as. The cichlid fish did not become largemouth bass or rainbow trout or sharks, they staunchly and stubbornly remained cichlid fish. As with Darwin's "amazing" work on Galapagos, there is nothing to observe or note except variation within species. Taxonomically, none of these examples became anything other than what they were to begin with beyond social variations within the species.

  One might well use similar taxonomomical methods to speciate Negroid, Caucasoid, and Mongoloid. Surely there is cause for speciation if one examines the social habits of each group during, let's say, the 400s to 800s AD. BSC is an example of science employing extreme bias in defining its terms so that it can be deemed correct.

  There's "plenty there" alright, plenty of talk and plenty of eagerness to bolster Darwinist theory by whatever imaginative stretches may be employed to the task. There is nothing of any weight whatsoever when it comes to showing that one thing evolved FROM another thing significantly different in form and function, not using mere behavior or decoration to speciate.

  Respectfully,
  AuldSoul
• 
  365

  Richard Dawkins Gets "Expelled" by Ben Stein!

  by Perry in

  1. watchtower
  2. scandals

  i just got back from seeing the new movie release "expelled" which is a documentary exposing the militant culture of supression regarding intelligent design in the scientific community.

  in a "million years", i never would have imagined that ben stein could get the author of "the god delusion", richard dawkins to speak favorably about i.d.

  (intellignet design).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  AuldSoul

  hamilcarr: You may want to consider this article on observed instances of speciation.

  Excerpted from your source:

  2.0 Species Definitions
  A discussion of speciation requires a definition of what constitutes a species. This is a topic of considerable debate within the biological community. Three recent reviews in the Journal of Phycology give some idea of the scope of the debate (Castenholz 1992, Manhart and McCourt 1992, Wood and Leatham 1992). There are a variety of different species concept currently in use by biologists. These include folk, biological, morphological, genetic, paleontological, evolutionary, phylogenetic and biosystematic definitions. In the interest of brevity, I'll only discuss four of these -- folk, biological, morphological and phylogenetic. A good review of species definitions is given in Stuessy 1990.
  
  2.1 The Folk Concept of Species
  
  Naturalists around the world have found that the individual plants and animals they see can be mentally grouped into a number of taxa, in which the individuals are basically alike. In societies that are close to nature, each taxon is given a name. These sorts of folk taxonomies have two features in common. One aspect is the idea of reproductive compatability and continuity within a species. Dogs beget dogs, they never beget cats! This has a firm grounding in folk knowledge. The second notion is that there is a discontinuity of variation between species. In other words, you can tell species apart by looking at them (Cronquist 1988).
  
  2.2 The Biological Species Concept
  Over the last few decades the theoretically preeminent species definition has been the biological species concept (BSC). This concept defines a species as a reproductive community.

  Between these two, I recommend neither.

  The author of your source uses BSC, which, conveniently for your intents on this thread, allow for non-reproductive "species" (in which concept, mules are a species rather than a hybrid of two genetically similar species) and for "species" for which there is and has ever been only ONE known example to have ever existed.

  I would obviously be receptive to an example of speciation via the Folk Species Concept, but I think that an unreasonably severe standard to meet and one I am sure you will readily agree you could not produce an example of.

  The Phenetic Species Concept would not be an unreasonably severe standard to meet if speciation is observably occurring to that degree.

  On the whole, I wonder if you even read the piece you linked. It throroughly confirms what I stated regarding self-limiting boundaries on viability. Without viability there may as well be no speciation recognized even using the BSC, because it could not propogate and therefore could not maintain existence as a species. A remarkable observation in your link is that without BOUNDARIES to prevent interbreeding sterilization results to speciated samples. How such naturally occurring boundaries be possible in sufficient quantity to account for what we all see around us every day, when it comes to variation of species?

  Respectfully,
  AuldSoul
• 
  365

  Richard Dawkins Gets "Expelled" by Ben Stein!

  by Perry in

  1. watchtower
  2. scandals

  i just got back from seeing the new movie release "expelled" which is a documentary exposing the militant culture of supression regarding intelligent design in the scientific community.

  in a "million years", i never would have imagined that ben stein could get the author of "the god delusion", richard dawkins to speak favorably about i.d.

  (intellignet design).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  AuldSoul

  inrainbows: That about covers it.

  I apologize for my obtusity. I couldn't find where that site addressed anything except arguments I (for one) never put forward. Perhaps you could show how that site you linked to "covers" my response. I didn't really enjoy having the well poisoned, so to speak, since I doubt I ever would have read the "Leader's Guide" but have now been exposed to some of its contents in such a way that I cannot fairly deny whether its contents are partially informing some of my viewpoints.

  A horse cross-bred with an ass produces a mule. A mule cross-bred with a mule produces what? I never argued, if you examine my statement carefully, that mules are always infertile. I said, in essence, that mules are not a viable species in their own right. I daresay you would not disagree with what I said, would you?

  Without being rude, you are intimating that language has some correlation to the subject under discussion instead of laying the matter firmly to rest by citing your best case of macro evolution which proves, conclusively, that extraspecial evolution has ever occurred. A poster inferred that only the uninitiated would accept micro evolution without accepting, as a logical extension, macro evolution. In terms more crude, I invited the scientifically minded on the forum to put up or shut up on the subject of macro evolution.

  If it is established, prove it. That should be simple enough. Don't hypothesize it or lead by inquiry to that conclusion . . . show it. If it is real it should be an easily accomplished task.

  Back to the subject of known design . . . with the advent of Object Oriented Programming, Artificial Intelligence, and Self-Modifying Code or Adaptive Code, comparisons which previously could not be effectively made between genetic code and known design can now be easily made. The great likelihood is that the more refined our known designs become in this vein of endeavor, the more closely similar examples of known design will become when compared with the sleek functionality of DNA, RNA, and mRNA.

  I believe the wide variety of life that cannot mate but which shares a similar base set of code now has a very close parallel in known design. It already shows all signs of trending much more closely toward similarity with biological processes in the future. Of course, this particular arena of known design is still very much in its infancy, but earthmen have only been around for a few thousand years, geologically speaking.

  Respectfully,
  AuldSoul
• 
  27

  Caption This Cartoon!

  by sacolton in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  insert your own important announcement .... .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  AuldSoul

  "We are resolved, brothers. No matter how long it takes, no matter how nonsensical our doctrines eventually appear to others, no matter how often we must change our doctrines or prophetic interpretations just as time has proved them outstandingly incorrect, we are resolved that we will never be happier than we are as Jehovah's Witnesses!"

  (and, sad to say, it is all too often true)
• 
  28

  Awakend at Gilead inspires me to speak frankly with my wife........

  by oompa in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  had a nice long talk with him yesterday....he sure seems to be on the fast track all of a sudden , but actually has shared doubts with his wife for years.

  but once he makes up his mind....man he really moves.

  so some of my elders know i think it bullshit, but i did not just come right out and say it.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  AuldSoul

  oompa,

  Every day there are new people posting here who will not dig deeper than the current few days threads. In my opinion, for what it's worth, it matters to say it over and over again.

  Respectfully,
  AuldSoul
• 
  365

  Richard Dawkins Gets "Expelled" by Ben Stein!

  by Perry in

  1. watchtower
  2. scandals

  i just got back from seeing the new movie release "expelled" which is a documentary exposing the militant culture of supression regarding intelligent design in the scientific community.

  in a "million years", i never would have imagined that ben stein could get the author of "the god delusion", richard dawkins to speak favorably about i.d.

  (intellignet design).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  AuldSoul

  serotonin_wraith: Meaning creationists deny this is all evolution is. They think it's something more, so you get the classic 'I believe in micro evolution, not macro evolution' line, when they don't get that macro evolution is just micro evolution repeated over and over.

  So, are you suggesting that extra-special evolution has been scientifically proven? I was unaware of that development.

  I believe in micro evolution. I believe micro evolution is self-limited by its incapacity to specially extend beyond a certain point while maintaining viability. I believe that is why horses and asses can be bred to make a mule, but a male and female mule can't breed to make another mule.

  I believe the scientific community would love to be able to PROVE that extra-special evolution has occurred according to the rules of scientific discovery, but I have not discovered any instance in which it has been proved to have occurred. Argument lines regarding shared genetic similarities are now moot because we now have plethoric examples of known design in which "reusable code" is recognized as a very efficient way to produce a wide variety of similar end products which vary greatly in function from a very small base set of commands.

  I would highly enjoy considering your best case example of speciation that can withstand the rigors of truly scientific analysis.

  Expectantly,
  AuldSoul
• 
  63

  Could religious belief be considered a sign of mental illness?

  by nicolaou in

  1. watchtower
  2. medical

  religious believers clearly have tendencies to make-up "facts" and "evidence" rather than accept true research and admit even the simplest of belief failures.

  they have strange ceremonies that are virtually pointless but are said to have special significance or power.. we all know certain 'christians' alive today who are fully prepared to argue that they might never die!

  couldn't it be argued that such a reversion into childlike fantasy is a telltale sign of mental illness?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  AuldSoul

  nic: My point is that to an impartial observer the beliefs of a religious person might appear very similar to those of someone who is truly suffering from a mental illness.

  No worries, mate.

  My point is and has ever been that the human does not exist who is impartial, therefore, I must assume you mean to speak for rocks or some other sort of observer besides human observers. This 'partiality' is very much a human trait, as I am sure you can readily agree, and I would submit that those who wish to eradicate partiality are wishing to eradicate an innate trait of humanity itself.

  The desire to observe impartially is a desire contrary to the nature of humanity, in my opinion. One might as well seek to fly unaided by anything external to oneself as to seek to observe impartially. Actively seeking to do that which is contrary to our nature is aberrant behavior, abnormal behavior. Dare I say, mentally ill behavior?

  No. I don't say mentally ill. Rather, I assert that it is more indicative of a social illness, seeking to distance oneself from phenomenon observed as though comprehension of the observed phenomenon will be somehow better through the attempt; as though clarity of explanation is deemed qualitatively and moralistically better than clarity of experience.

  I tend to lay aside such ideas as . . . silly. Rejecting the evidence of personal experience is a rejection of much of what makes me a human. I think I will happily continue to embrace personal experience as a valid source of information until I can clearly be convinced that is an unwise thing to do.

  Respectfully,
  AuldSoul
• 
  12

  Hanging on the words of the WBTS.

  by Caedes in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  it seems that we haven't changed much, we are all as excited by the latest announcements as when we were sat in that kh.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  AuldSoul

  Caedes: yes the reasons may have changed but I'm not so sure the Gb is so stupid that they will do anything drastic. As princess Leia said to grand moff Tarkin "the tighter you squeeze the more systems will slip through your fingers" They must surely realise that? If only because of the figures.

  I don't believe intelligence drives their decisions so much as does an intinctively overprotectiveness. I sincerely doubt they will regard their measures as drastic, even in their most private of thoughts, however much their decisions may seem so to those who analyze from outside their cloistering cocoon of religious zealotry. I am certain that when this young caterpillar of a religion finishes its metamorphosis it will be little more than a malnourished lump of unrealized bug squish incapable of even breaking out of its own shell.

  Caedes: I think we all sometimes (for the best of reasons) fixate on anything negative about them. The new bookstudy thing (if true) is an example, they are damned if they cut a night as surely as they would have been if they increased the number of meetings.

  Well, when it comes to high-control religions I must admit that any move they make is the wrong one if it does not trend toward mainstreaming normalcy and reduced control. You agree, do you not?

  Respectfully,
  AuldSoul
• 
  11

  The generation change- why now?

  by JimmyPage in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i understand why the change in understanding of a generation was made in '95.

  it was because the time was basically up for the generation of 1914. but why do you think the latest change has been made at this particular time?

  and how does it tie in to the new light about 1935 that was revealed this past year?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  AuldSoul

  yknot: Barr (born 1913 in Scotland as JW) didn't claim anointment at 22, but later in life. Therefore he technically is a graph, as his anointment came after the sealing of 1935.

  John and his lovely wife had been married for years before he began to feel certain he was anointed. If I remember his account correctly, as he related it to our family when he came to Albany, Georgia as a guest speaker for a District Convention, he was already in his 40's.

  I have been waiting for some doctrinal change that would ease acceptance of two future changes, one of them being the amazing admission revelation that the number 144,000 is symbolic after all. I believe that the consolidation of the congregations will help the Governing Body determine where a problem with resistance to new doctrine is systemic to the entire elder body and where it is only a matter of a few rogue elders. It will also make it much easier to maintain the function of congregations where entire elder bodies need to be purged in the "cleansing" fires of the refiner.

  Respectfully,
  AuldSoul