crownboy

Joined

• started 67 topics
• posted 802 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by crownboy

• 
  155

  Evolution or creation?

  by haujobbz in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  .

  if i had to answer this i suppose i would say im not sure which one i believe, i have always wondered why the universe is so huge and always wondered what its role is and how it affects us.. im always fascinated when i look up at the sky and think to myself i feel so small in such a huge universe a sought of cold isolated feeling is what i experience and then i think, i wonder why this planet came to support life after all it was supposedly all happened by chance.. dont get me wrong im no scientist but i think i need more convincing regarding evolution.. can anyone help regarding these questions

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  crownboy

  Evolution is both a fact and theory. This point is eloquently written about in an essay by Stephen Jay Gould entitiled "Evolution as Fact and Theory" (see: http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html )

  To quote from the essay (it's better to read the entire thing from the link, BTW):

  In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus creationists can (and do) argue: evolution is "only" a theory, and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is less than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of sciencethat is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."

  Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered.
• 
  155

  Evolution or creation?

  by haujobbz in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  .

  if i had to answer this i suppose i would say im not sure which one i believe, i have always wondered why the universe is so huge and always wondered what its role is and how it affects us.. im always fascinated when i look up at the sky and think to myself i feel so small in such a huge universe a sought of cold isolated feeling is what i experience and then i think, i wonder why this planet came to support life after all it was supposedly all happened by chance.. dont get me wrong im no scientist but i think i need more convincing regarding evolution.. can anyone help regarding these questions

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  crownboy

  Hey haujobbz.

  The evolution/creation debate has been a topic on this board for some time. As Francois has indicated, it is not a necessity to disbelieve both of them, as there are many theistic evolutionist in the world today who can harmonize scientific fact with religious belief. Some interesting threads on this board that you can read through are:

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.aspx?id=36837&site=3

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.aspx?id=17730&site=3

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.aspx?id=16271&site=3

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.aspx?id=31509&site=3

  Happy reading.
• 
  101

  Silentlambs, The Letter, The World, and Justice.

  by BeautifulGarbage in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  first off, let me express that bill bowen would not know me from any stranger on the street.

  i have never spoken with him, or have i ever corresponded with him.

  the only information that i have of him is what i have read of him on this forum and on silentlambs.org.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  crownboy

  BeautifulGarbage, I largely agree with what you have to say. I think SL should stay focused solely on the main goal. Bill Bowen has to know that his letter to the GB was an excersize in futility, with no practical value. Yes, I indeed get his points, etc., but this will go nowhere. Of course, I praise his overall work, and hope it continues sucessfully.

  Great posts Reborn2002. When did you stop believing in God, BTW? When you first came here, I'm pretty sure you were a believer, but welcome to the "dark side" .

  Jesika, there is no use getting all worked up over Pom's comments. I certainly see why you are angry, but like Bill Bowens letter to the GB, what's the use? Pom won't change his belief system (I know you're not attempting to change his), and he'll continue to say the same thing. At least ignore him for this thread .
• 
  19

  Jesus Myth?

  by ISP in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  in all the years i was a christian minister, i never preached a sermon about the evidence for a historic jesus.

  there was no need for such a sermon.

  i stood before many congregations and associated with many ministers, evangelists and pastors, and not one of us ever spoke about the possibility that jesus was a fable, or that his story is more myth than history.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  crownboy

  Great information, ISP.

  The fact that there is scant outside evidence for the acknowlegdement of Jesus, and no evidence that confirms that he was some sort of resurrected godman who cast demonised pigs off cliffs certainly puts orthodox christain claims under great scrutiny.

  It's interesting that you mentioned that early Christains did not believe in a literal Christ. I read such a thesis recently in the book The Jesus Mysteries (by Freke and Gandy, I think ?). While I don't know if I hold all of the opinions of the authors, they show the clear correlations between Christanity and paganism, I'm sure most Christains would be interested in seeing the evidence .
• 
  14

  The Morality of Teenage Baptism

  by metatron in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  if the watchtower claims it only does what the bible says.

  and does not "go beyond the things that are written", then by.

  what authority does it encourage the baptism of teenagers?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  crownboy

  The comment about when Jesus got baptized should be stressed among JW's .

  It is totally unfair that the JW org. holds people like myself "hostage" by getting us baptized at an absurdly early age (in my case, 12). My views on just about everything have changed in that 8 year span (hell, I've developed opinions on things I didn't even know about back then), and I've simply matured to a greater degree overall than I was back then. Sure, I thought I wasn't being coerced, but looking back, some reasons I did it besides "love for god" were:

  a) It was expected of me. I was the child of a ministerial servant, I gave good comments at meeting, had great "bible knowlegde" for my age (i.e.: I didn't get confused by 607BC type JW stuff ), and it was the way to "reach out for more responsibility".

  b) If I didn't get baptized I would die.... at Armageddon.... because I knew enough about the truth to "make it my own". That kind of disturbing message to a young person can work wonders on the mind.

  Of course, the main thing I have now that I didn't have then was knowledge about what the Society is truly about.

  If I hadn't been baptized, I would have fully stopped attending meetings by last year and simply go on with my life. My family would not have been able to shun me, and all would be good. Instead, I've got to go through a convoluted "slow fade" routine, because my baptism makes it possible for the damn Org. to adversely affect the relationship I have with my family. All because of a decision I made before I even entered high school! What the Society does with JW children is an outrage, and should be stopped.
• 
  42

  A lame reply from Amazon.com

  by Xandria in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  dear shanna,.

  thank you for writing to amazon.com with your concern.. .

  let me assure you, amazon.com does not endorse "understanding loved.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  crownboy

  I have to agree with the anti censorship crowd here (rem and francois, et al )

  Basically, people are applying a "sliding scale" rule for what they find offensive. I'm 110% sure there are other books that Amazon sells that you guys find "offensive" that you will not boycott, but since pedophilia is a "hot button" issue, and one that may be a bit close to home for some, we can all rally behind this one.

  Like most of you, I abhor pedophiles and think they are the vilest of humans. I also abhor racist, most of you probably do too. But does that mean that a book like Mein Kampf should be banned from bookstores because it presents ideas we disagree with? You can make the argument that reading Hitler's book could impress on the mind of some people, turn them into anti-semites, and they can start doing horrible things, even kill some people. However, is banning Hitler's book truly the answer, and doesn't Hitler have a right to express his views? Wouldn't it be much more effective, and indeed morally better, simply to discredit Hitler's claims instead of supressing his nonsense?

  Should we try to supress a book simply because the majority does not like it? Unless there is illegal material published in there, I think this is an immoral stance. Where would we objectively draw the line? Would it be OK for fundy christains (if they become a majority), to try to ban Amazon.com from selling books that proclaim homosexuality not to be morally wrong? This would be a big issue for them, for such a thing would be considered a form of blashemy or something, right? Should they be allowed to censure because it's a "hot button" issue? Afterall, Amazon doesn't have to sell books like that, right?

  I still don't get the people who say that Amazon is "promoting" pedophilia. They also sell anti-pedophilia books, so perhaps they (Amazon) are confused ? To say that this book will turn people into pedophiles seems baseless, as pedophiles don't learn their "craft" from reading pseudo-scientific books, but by other means. This book will only justify actions in the minds of already sick people, and can provide insight (for researchers, doctors, even laymen like us) into the minds of these disturbed people, and afford us an opportunity to rebut their nonsense (as an Amazon person has done, among others). This excersize in open debate may potentially help some pedophiles to see the folly of their ways, but even if it doesn't the pedophile has a right to express his opinion nontheless (we should keep a close eye on the author of this book, though).

  Freedom of speech is too precious, IMO, to supress simply because people don't agree with a person's view (and YES you are trying to supress speech by making it harder to get the book, like the JW org. does with its older publications).
• 
  30

  Favourite Simpson's secondary character?

  by crownboy in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  the simpsons has got to be my favourite animated series of all time.

  obviously, all of the main characters are pretty good (my favourite main character is homer, dohhh!

  so for the simpsons fans here, who is your favourite secondary character?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  crownboy

  The Simpsons has got to be my favourite animated series of all time. Obviously, all of the main characters are pretty good (my favourite main character is Homer, DOHHH! ), but I think the secondary characters can give some of the funniest lines in the show.

  So for the Simpsons fans here, who is your favourite secondary character?

  Well, I like just about all of them, but I'll try to narrow it down to a few.

  I like Fat Tony and his mob crew:

  "Bart, is it wrong to steal a loaf of bread to feed your starving family?"

  "well, no"

  "...and what if you have a particularly large family, is it wrong to steal a truckload of bread?"

  "I guess not"

  I also like Disco Stu and the Duff beer man. They're kinda rare characters, but crack me up whenever they show up. Even though Grandpa is a boarderline "main character", I'd be remiss if I didn't mention him, too.

  So what about you guys?
• 
  7

  Creationism being reintroduced in schools

  by pettygrudger in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  atlanta, georgia (cnn) -- a suburban atlanta school board thursday night voted unanimously to allow teachers to introduce students to different views about the origins of life.

  the cobb county board of education, the state's second-largest school board, approved the policy change after limited discussion, calling it a "necessary element of providing a balanced education.

  the board's vote drew cheers from some and expressions of dismay from others in the packed meeting room.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  crownboy

  Well, hopefully this will be shot down in the supreme court when it gets there.

  If creationist want to teach religious myths in school, do it in religion or philosophy class. They want the "rubber stamp" of seriousness that putting a topic under the name of science usually garners. They'll have to earn it the old fashioned way by showing objective proof that the Genesis story is true (because by creationism, they don't mean the Hindu version ).

  For a good discussion of this topic see: http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.aspx?id=36837&site=3
• 
  41

  What part of the bible is most disturbing to you?

  by crownboy in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  for me, it's actually the book of job, which happens to be one of my favourite books.

  the way job steadfastly maintains his innocence, and questions god, as well as rebuffs the three comforters (who proffer arguments along the lines of mordern apologist, although in this book they are "bad guys" ) made him my hero of sorts throughout most of the book.

  if most people today questioned god the way he did, they would probably be condemned for it.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  crownboy

  For me, it's actually the book of Job, which happens to be one of my favourite books.
  
  The way Job steadfastly maintains his innocence, and questions God, as well as rebuffs the three comforters (who proffer arguments along the lines of mordern apologist, although in this book they are "bad guys" ) made him my hero of sorts throughout most of the book. If most people today questioned god the way he did, they would probably be condemned for it.
  
  However, at the end, when god himself speaks to Job, it all falls apart. Job turns into an apologetic blob of jello once god tells him "I'm more powerful and wise than you. Who are you to question me? Hell, I kill dragons, you can't!"
  
  That attitude about god's authority is essentially promoted througout the entire bible. Here god had unjustly taken away most of what Job had possesed (a bet with the devil is not a just reason, and Job was "blameless", hence not fit for punishment), and he didn't even as much as offer an apology for the inconvience he had caused. He simply asserted his (god) right to do whatever he wanted to whomever he wanted, objective fairness be damned (sounds kind of like US foreign policy

  Other nominations:

  Book most likely written by guy who needed anti-depressants: Ecclesiastes

  Book most likely written by guy on some serious drugs: Ezekiel, hands down. Daniel and John of Patmos have nothing on this guy .
• 
  72

  CREATIONISM----F.Y.I

  by nakedmvistar in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  in the midst of the debates -- or wars -- concerning the issues of creation and evolution, there is a tendency to over-generalize.

  both sides often refer to the opposing side with the broad term of either "evolutionist" or "creationist.

  " and yet there exists within both sides a great deal of variety and even controversy.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  crownboy

  tkmmorgan, i'm glad who have/ will review the info we have provided you. Ignoring the fact I have seen much of the creationist arguments you presented here before, I did read much of your material. Hopefully, the fact that I was readily able to point to many errors and provide you with documentation will help you think about the evolution debate in a different light.

  Nice post, rem.

  To address the point about "fatal mutations", basically, the "model" you have of mutations in your head in relation to evolution is wrong, as it disregards the role of natural selection in the mix. Indeed most mutations aren't benefical, but most are neutral, not deletrious, though indeed there tends to be more deleterious ones than benefical ones. The model you have in mind would best be illustrated by imagining a construction worker who makes 99 mistakes for every 100 things he does, and therefore causes more damage on a construction site than positive work. However, in the evolutionary model, the construction worker would have a method called natural selection that automatically disposes of the 99 errors he makes and only implements the one positive move, so, overtime, the worker can build a palace.

  The reason my illustration works is because in evolution (as you pointed out), a deleterious mutation causes death, or at the very least very adverse consequences on the mutation carrier. This causes the person with the malady to die off and not have any offspring (or very few), WHICH MEANS THE DELETERIOUS MUTATION IS LIMITED TO ONE PERSON in most cases (before the advent of mordern medicine, at least). But a person/animal with a positive mutation will leave more offspring and will allow it to proliferate in the gene pool. Natural selection therefore weeds out the bad mutations and keeps the good ones, and over billions of years, genetic palaces are built on the positive mutations that proliferate.

  The AIDS/ cold virus situation you presented is once again a good case of evolution. Indeed, it would be very odd if a cold virus were to randomly mutate into an AIDS virus, but how do you think the AIDS virus got here to begin with? Unless you believe god created it by divine fiat, then you would have to conclude that the AIDS virus evolved from some other, older virus, as did the cold virus(es). If you trace back the lineage of both viruses (supposing that can be done), you would probably find out that they came from an original virus strain an absurdly long time ago, after which they branched out, and through modifications that take place with a vaste amount of time, they are the two viruses we see (at least microscopically ) today, much like what happened when man and ape branched away from each other 6 million years ago.

  Once again, happy reading and see you around.