Posts by Decidedly

Quote
==================
i think this a perfectly valid argument. the analogy with OOP is stretched a
bit but is basically sound.
==================
I agree that it is merely an analogy but the more I think about the so-called
"junk DNA" in this light, the less I see it as something that
"disproves" creation. I'm merely viewing these analogies as "possible" even
plausible explanations. Isn't that what evolutionists do sometimes?
Perhaps we can stretch the analogy even a bit more!

Quote
==============================
any creationist that wants to reconcile the
genetic evidence with special creation will pretty much have to follow this
route, that god creates in such a way that resembles evolution. it is left to
the individual to decide what sounds most likely.
======================
Creation through evolution Sounds like the various types of inheritance used
in software engineering:

( The foll. stretch is obviously highly speculative and imaginative and
lengthy! but is really my thinking aloud as to possible correlation between
what we deem productive software engineering design methods and
creation-evolution -genetic code) :

***********
INHERITANCE TYPES
Quote
==================
i think this a perfectly valid argument. the analogy with OOP is stretched a
bit but is basically sound.
==================
I agree that it is merely an analogy but the more I think about the so-called
"junk DNA" in this light, the less I see it as something that
"disproves" creation. I'm merely viewing these analogies as "possible" even
plausible explanations. Isn't that what evolutionists do sometimes?
Perhaps we can stretch the analogy even a bit more!

Quote
==============================
any creationist that wants to reconcile the
genetic evidence with special creation will pretty much have to follow this
route, that god creates in such a way that resembles evolution. it is left to
the individual to decide what sounds most likely.
======================
Creation through evolution Sounds like the various types of inheritance used
in software engineering:

( The foll. stretch is obviously highly speculative and imaginative and
lengthy! but is really my thinking aloud as to possible correlation between
what we deem productive software engineering design methods and
creation-evolution -genetic code) :

***********
INHERITANCE TYPES
There are a number of variations of inheritance in object- oriented languages;
these include dynamic, selective or partial inheritance and monotonic
inheritance.

Class inheritance is essentially a static form of inheritance. New classes
inherit properties when they are defined rather than at run time. Once a class
has been defined, the properties of its instances, that is the instance
variables and methods are determined for all time.
&&Note This could relate to original creation, the basic life form templates.

Dynamic inheritance is the mechanism that allows objects to alter their
behaviour in the course of normal interaction with other objects. there are
two forms of dynamic inheritance, part and scope inheritance.
&& Note After the creator defined the essential classes (templates), the
objects (bird, fish etc) would be "instantiated" i.e. born (programmers run
the app.)
The foll. occur in real systems and can be likened to what you call
evolution??

Part inheritance occurs when an object changes its behaviour by accepting new
parts from other objects. Part inheritance is nothing more than an exchange of
values between objects. An object may dynamically inherit new instance
variables and methods from other objects.
Scope inheritance involves cases where the object's behaviour is determined in
part by the environment or its acquaintances. When changes in the environment
occur, the behaviour of the object changes. An example is where we have a
paragraph in a document that inherits its font and style from an enclosing
environment. If the paragraph is moved to a footnote, new properties will be
inherited.
&& Note, while all this could be termed evolutionary behavior, the
capabilities to interact in such manner was "programmed" before runtime i.e.
genetically engineered by an intelligent creator!?
**********************

While all of the above is highly speculative, I'd love to have the time to
investigate the concept further. Does our genetic material have embedded
in it any or all of the above capabilities?
I have no knowledge of genetics and really should before venturing into a
discussion such as this.
Thanks to WT time pressures I can't find time right now!
Supporting or opposing viewpoints - deeply appreciated.

Decidely_Unsure

22

Evolution is fact Bias - corrected post

by Decidedly_Unsure in

jw
friends

all object-oriented languages have some means,.

the dog class defines messages that the dog.

this is the key for someone with no bias toward evolution.

Decidedly_Unsure

**********************************
So God took an earlier model of an animal he created and added information to create a new one, neglecting to remove all the junk? WHy would he do this?
********************

I can't presume to say what was done. I merely postulate that if he used an approach similar to what is now considered efficient systems and application development, he could well have employed the principle of inheritance.

IOW Rather than make a new template for each object type, it makes sense to develop abstractions or templates in categories with specific potential behaviour and data. New templates inherit from predecesors the capabilities even though not neccessarily surfaced in the actual implementations. Specific behaviour and data are added to these subclasses.
Why do it? If we have finally realized it is far more efficient to develop relatively trivial things as computer applications and operating systems this way , is it so hard to imagine that life, with it's tremendous range of complexities, could be "pre-programmed" in a similar fashion?

Did you follow the eg. I gave of the pushbutton on your computer screen? Depending on the language the app you are using was programmed in, it likely has the inherent ability to be minimized, moved etc. even though you can't do it. That's because it was derived from the "window" class.
Do you believe the programmer who made it this way was lazy? or stupid?

22

Evolution is fact Bias - corrected post

by Decidedly_Unsure in

jw
friends

all object-oriented languages have some means,.

the dog class defines messages that the dog.

this is the key for someone with no bias toward evolution.

Decidedly_Unsure

The "Evolution is a fact" argument started by JanH seems to have found
overwhelming support. I have not read about many arguments for or against
evolution except for JW stuff so you will know my alreay biased view:-)

My understanding of his basic premise is that "common DNA" and "useless DNA"
should not result from an act of creation but evolution. Hence he asserts:

" as times goes by and evolution changes species considerably, this
means a lot of junk accumulates in the DNA. In fact, most of the DNA we have
in us -- and this is true about every other organism -- is useless junk code,
so-called pseudocode. Some of it contains copies of code used elsewhere
(reduplications). Lots of it is code that was used by some of our ancestors.
And, when we see that we share these meaningless sequences with chimps and
other species as well, it is direct evidence to the fact of evolution."

(Would you agree that the above already indicates an evolutionist's bias in
the argument? Note the use of ancestors! )
and he concludes:

"No creationist should be allowed to repeat their silly assertions without
being called to task to reply to this question: If we and other species were
created directly, how come we have genes for tails, birds have genes for teeth
and whales have genes for legs, genes that are sometimes actived today? In the
creationist world, such a thing would be impossible. In the real world, one
where all species is the result of evolution -- descent with modification --
such throwbacks are both possible and exactly what we should expect.
This is just one reason we know that evolution is a fact"

Does this not presume to know by what means a creator would proceed to make
living things? From the point of view of the thing evolved or created
something embedded may be junk but how do we know that this would be so for a
creator?

Consider another posible viewpoint. It's interesting that JanH should menton
pseudocode. Perhaps he has been exposed to some programming languages. I
myself have basic familiarity with just one or two. Much of the foll. is
taken from a primer that has nothing to do with evolution/creation debate.
I just thought it would represent an alternative viewpoint that could refute
the argument mentioned by JanH.
The key is inheritance, please read through to the explanation of what that
is.

Please bear with me, I wish I could make this shorter:
======================================
In creating new applications a very common approach
taken by developers is object-oriented programming. This relatively modern
approach is considered to be far more efficient than earlier methods of
programming (i.e. creating :-)).

In this approach, code and data are embedded in
"black-box" objects derived from blueprints called "Classes".

How are objects defined? An object is defined via its class, which determines
everything about an object. Objects are individual instances of a class. For
example, you may create an object call Spot from class Dog. The Dog class
defines what it is to be a Dog object, and all the "dog-related" messages a
Dog object can act upon. All object-oriented languages have some means,
usually called a factory, to "manufacture" object instances from a class
definition. You can make more than one object of this class, and call
them Spot, Fido, Rover, etc. The Dog class defines messages that the Dog
objects understand, such as "bark", "fetch", and "roll-over".

INHERITANCE IS THE KEY--
This is the key for someone with no bias toward evolution. Could it be that
there is a creator who used an analog of inheritance? In fact if he were
efficient, it would probably make far more sense for him to use this approach
than any other!

Inheritance: What is it?
If there is already a class which can respond to a bunch of
different messages, what if you wanted to make a new, similar class which adds
just a couple of more messages? Why have to re-write the entire class?

Of course, in any good object-oriented language, you don't. All you need to do
is create a subclass (or derived class, in C++ terminology) of the original
class. This new class inherits all the existing messages, and therefore, all
the behavior of the original class. The original class is called the parent
class, or superclass, of the new class. Some more jargon -- a subclass is said
to be a specialization of its superclass, and the conversely a superclass a
generalization of its subclasses.

Inheritance also promotes reuse. You don't have to start from scratch when you
write a new program. You can simply reuse an existing repertoire of classes
that have behaviors similar to what you need in the new program.

For example, after creating the class Dog, you might make a subclass called
Wolf, which defines some wolf-specific messages, such as hunt. Or it might
make more sense to define a common class called Canis, of which both Dog and
Wolf are subclasses.

Much of the art of o-o programming is determining the best way to divide a
program into an economical set of classes. In addition to speeding development
time, proper class construction and reuse results in far fewer lines of code,
which translates to less bugs and lower maintenance costs.

===================

Junk or Subclassed data? Depends on your bias, doesn't it!!

Decidedly_Unsure

BTW an eg of much subclassing/inheritance occurs in many languages for MS
Windows, where most classes are derived from the superclass called Window.
For eg. a pushbutton may have available to it all the methods of a window
including resizing, minimizing etc even though not surfaced to the user.

A pushbutton could well ask: why do I need all these methods? I just need to
be clicked!! From the programmers viewpoint it just happens to be a more
efficient way to do things.

Guess man was really made in God's image after all. He's even beginning to
learn how to create efficiently!!

4

Evolution is a fact post - Biased view?

by Decidedly_Unsure in

jw
friends

the "evolution is a fact" argument started by janh seems to have found.

in fact, most of the.

the argument mentioned by janh.. the key is inheritance, please read through to the explanation of what.

Decidedly_Unsure

The "Evolution is a fact" argument started by JanH seems to have found

overwhelming support. I have not read about many arguments for or against

evolution except for JW stuff so you will know my alreay biased view:-)

;My understanding of his basic premise is that "common DNA" and

"useless DNA"

should not result from an act of creation but evolution. Hence he asserts:

" as times goes by and evolution changes species considerably, this

means a lot of junk accumulates in the DNA. In fact, most of the

DNA we have

in us -- and this is true about every other organism -- is useless

junk code,

so-called pseudocode. Some of it contains copies of code used elsewhere

(reduplications). Lots of it is code that was used by some of our

ancestors.

And, when we see that we share these meaningless sequences with

chimps and

other species as well, it is direct evidence to the fact of evolution."

(Would you agree that the above already indicates an evolutionist's

bias in

the argument? Note the use of ancestors! )

and he concludes:

"No creationist should be allowed to repeat their silly assertions

without

being called to task to reply to this question: If we and other

species were

created directly, how come we have genes for tails, birds have genes

for teeth

and whales have genes for legs, genes that are sometimes actived

today? In the

creationist world, such a thing would be impossible. In the real

world, one

where all species is the result of evolution -- descent with modification

--

such throwbacks are both possible and exactly what we should expect.

This is just one reason we know that evolution is a fact"

Does this not presume to know by what means a creator would proceed

to ; make

living things? ; From the point of view of the thing evolved or

created

something embedded may be junk but how do we know that this would be

so for a

creator?

Consider another posible viewpoint. It's interesting that JanH should

menton

pseudocode. ; Perhaps he has been exposed to some programming languages. ;

I

myself have basic familiarity with just one or two. ; Much of the

foll. is

taken from a primer that has nothing to do with evolution/creation

debate.

I just thought it would represent an alternative viewpoint that could

refute

the argument mentioned by JanH.

The key is inheritance, please read through to the explanation of what

that

is.

Please bear with me, I wish I could make this shorter:

======================================

;In creating new applications a very common approach

taken by developers is object-oriented programming. This relatively

modern

approach is considered to be far more efficient than earlier methods

of

programming (i.e. creating :-)).

In this approach, code and data are embedded in

"black-box" objects derived from blueprints called "Classes".

How are objects defined? An object is defined via its class, which determines

everything about an object. Objects are individual instances of a class.

For

example, you may create an object call Spot from class Dog. The Dog

class

defines what it is to be a Dog object, and all the "dog-related" messages

a

Dog object can act upon. All object-oriented languages have some means,

usually called a factory, to "manufacture" object instances from a

class

definition. You can make more than one object of this class, and call

them Spot, Fido, Rover, etc. The Dog class defines messages that the

Dog

objects understand, such as "bark", "fetch", and "roll-over".

INHERITANCE IS THE KEY--

This is the key for someone with no bias toward evolution. ;

Could it be that

there is a creator who used an analog of inheritance? ; In

fact if he were

efficient, it would probably make far more sense for him to use

this approach

than any other!

Inheritance: What is it?

;If there is already a class which can respond to a bunch of

different messages, what if you wanted to make a new, similar class

which adds

just a couple of more messages? Why have to re-write the entire class?

Of course, in any good object-oriented language, you don't. All you

need to do

is create a subclass (or derived class, in C++ terminology) of the

original

class. This new class inherits all the existing messages, and therefore,

all

the behavior of the original class. The original class is called the

parent

class, or superclass, of the new class. Some more jargon -- a subclass

is said

to be a specialization of its superclass, and the conversely a superclass

a

generalization of its subclasses.

Inheritance also promotes reuse. You don't have to start from scratch

when you

write a new program. You can simply reuse an existing repertoire of

classes

that have behaviors similar to what you need in the new program.

For example, after creating the class Dog, you might make a subclass

called

Wolf, which defines some wolf-specific messages, such as hunt. Or it

might

make more sense to define a common class called Canis, of which both

Dog and

Wolf are subclasses.

Much of the art of o-o programming is determining the best way to divide

a

program into an economical set of classes. In addition to speeding

development

time, proper class construction and reuse results in far fewer lines

of code,

which translates to less bugs and lower maintenance costs.

===================

;

Junk or Subclassed data? ; Depends on your bias, doesn't it!!

Decidedly_Unsure

;

BTW an eg of much subclassing/inheritance occurs in many languages for

MS

Windows, where most classes are derived from the superclass called

Window.

For eg. a pushbutton may have available to it all the methods of a

window

including resizing, minimizing etc even though not surfaced to the

user.

A pushbutton could well ask: why do I need all these methods? I just

need to

be clicked!! ; From the programmers viewpoint it just happens to

be a more

efficient way to do things.

Guess man was really made in God's image after all. ; He's even

beginning to

learn how to create efficiently!!

4

JWs showed Christian spirit?

by Decidedly_Unsure in

jw
friends

can anyone confirm the validity of this wol post?.

http://www.witnessesonline.com/cgi-bin/cgiwrap/witnessesonline/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=000168.

brother jaracz of the governing body was the guest speaker at our one day assembly today.

Decidedly_Unsure

Can anyone confirm the validity of this WOL post?
===============================================
http://www.witnessesonline.com/cgi-bin/cgiwrap/witnessesonline/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=000168
================
Brother Jaracz of the governing body was the guest speaker at our one day assembly today. He, too, concentrated on our role as comforters of those who mourn when we are in the field during this time. He also emphasized the opportunity that we have to speak to persons who seem to be more receptive to our message because the tragic events caused many to think about Armageddon, or at least, the end of their personal comfort zone.
The way that the Brooklyn Bethel brothers opened up their dorms and kitchens and let displaced people in and fed and gave them a place to rest should demonstrate the sincerity of our motives - we do, not just talk, just like we have done in other countries.

40

More Remote Viewing

by Decidedly_Unsure in

jw
friends

Decidedly_Unsure

Wondering here what the skeptics would accept. I wonder if the crux of the matter here isn't too much preoccupation with repeatability as a basis for testing a mere possibility!

Could the on-board skeptics say how they would qualify the foll.

( Just a hypothetical Eg. )
If I sit 3 alleged RVers in a room for a week and ask them to visualise stuff all week. Two of the Rver's have no hits at all (out of a possible 100 attempts each). The third RVer on his 95th attempt was asked to describe what he saw in a hotel room in Kingston ( a place he's never been). He "sees" a blue polka-dotted handkerchief in a drawer next to a silver pen and a yellow notepad. These items are found to exist at the specified location! The nect 5 attempts fail for thsi RVer.

Would the skeptics then say "That was a lucky guess, its not repeatable?!"

I for one may agree with them that, it's not significantly repeatable and therfore not useful, but isn't it dishonest to claim that RVing simply cannot occur because of this?

IOW if the probability of guessing correct object(s) is 100000000000000 and 100 RVers "see" the wrong thing even 99% of the time, then there is still a far greater likelihood of the RV phenomonon being real. Yet the so called scientists may very well discount these ocuurences as anomalies!

Are we being really objective?

40

More Remote Viewing

by Decidedly_Unsure in

jw
friends

Decidedly_Unsure

Truth hurts

by Decidedly_Unsure in

jw
friends

i can't believe it's all a sham!

remember before i was baptized, i wondered onto a hostile site and felt a sickening dread, when i confronted the sister who studied with me she reassured me that i shouldn't worry, all the stuff on those sites are written by bitter outcasts who have nothing constructive to offer, "after all", she said, ""did you ever read anything upbuilding there?

" well, here i am baptized, back on the net 4 years later and wham!!

Decidedly_Unsure

I,m not sure that these are obviously lies and halftruths. If even 75% of para. 10, 12 and 13 are correct then one could reasonably conclude that an "objective undecided" should be at least equally suspicious of the "apostate" crew as of the WT crew.
For eg.: motivated by bitterness, to retaliate at all costs, the ex Jws might have no qualms about underplaying the harmful consequences of moral decay or shipwrecking someone's faith in God altogether if it might help another break free from what they see as the WT enemy clutches.

There is much wrong with the WT, but I haven't seen the critics here consider the relative "before and after WT" states of spirituality generally. And not referring to the WT def. of sspirituality (=meeting attendence etc.) but true closeness to God.

28

Truth hurts

by Decidedly_Unsure in

jw
friends

i can't believe it's all a sham!

remember before i was baptized, i wondered onto a hostile site and felt a sickening dread, when i confronted the sister who studied with me she reassured me that i shouldn't worry, all the stuff on those sites are written by bitter outcasts who have nothing constructive to offer, "after all", she said, ""did you ever read anything upbuilding there?

" well, here i am baptized, back on the net 4 years later and wham!!

Decidedly_Unsure

Been lurking here a bit, and the truth about the truth really hurts. I can't believe it's all a sham!

Remember before i was baptized, i wondered onto a hostile site and felt a sickening dread, when I confronted the sister who studied with me she reassured me that i shouldn't worry, all the stuff on those sites are written by bitter outcasts who have nothing constructive to offer, "after all", she said, ""did you ever read anything upbuilding there?" Well, here i am baptized, back on the net 4 years later and wham!! All this Truth but.....

There are 2 sides to each coin and (looking up for defenses in their publications I found ) the WT has made the same defense my bible study conductor did. To undecided lurkers myself, who frequent this site, don't you find much of the WT defense to ring true? Here it is ( a bit long ):

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
WT july 1 1994!

Beware of the Poisonous Food on the Table of Demons

10 Food on the table of demons is poisonous. Consider, for example, the food dispensed by the evil slave class and the apostates. It does not nourish or build up; it is not wholesome. It cannot be, for the apostates have stopped feeding at Jehovah's table. As a result, whatever they had developed of the new personality is gone. What motivates them is, not holy spirit, but vitriolic bitterness. They are obsessed with only one aim-beating their former fellow slaves, as Jesus foretold.-Matthew 24:48, 49.

11 For example, away back in 1909, the then president of the Watch Tower Society, C. T. Russell, wrote about those who turned away from Jehovah's table and then began to mistreat their former fellow slaves. The Watch Tower of October 1, 1909, said: "All who cut loose from the Society and its work, instead of prospering themselves or upbuilding others in the faith and in the graces of the spirit, seemingly do the reverse-attempt injury to the Cause they once served, and, with more or less noise, gradually sink into oblivion, harming only themselves and others possessed of a similarly contentious spirit. . . . If some think that they can get as good or better provender at other tables, or that they can produce as good or better themselves-let these take their course. . . . But while we are willing that others should go anywhere and everywhere to find food and light to their satisfaction, strange to say, those who become our opponents take a very different course. Instead of saying in the manly fashion of the world, 'I have found something which I prefer; goodbye!' these manifest anger, malice, hatred, strife, 'works of the flesh and of the devil' such as we have never known worldly people to exhibit. They seem inoculated with madness, Satanic hydrophobia [rabies]. Some of them smite us and then claim that we did the smiting. They are ready to say and write contemptible falsities and to stoop to do meanness."

12 Yes, apostates publish literature that resorts to distortions, half-truths, and outright falsehood. They even picket Witness conventions, trying to trap the unwary. Hence, it would be a dangerous thing to allow our curiosity to move us to feed on such writings or to listen to their abusive speech! While we might not think it a risk for us personally, the hazard remains. Why? For one thing, some of the apostate literature presents falsehoods by means of "smooth talk" and "counterfeit words." (Romans 16:17, 18; 2 Peter 2:3) What would you expect from the table of demons? And while the apostates may also present certain facts, these are usually taken out of context with the goal of drawing others away from the table of Jehovah. All their writings simply criticize and tear down! Nothing is upbuilding.

13 Jesus said: "By their fruits you will recognize them." (Matthew 7:16) What, now, are the fruits of the apostates and their publications? Four things mark their propaganda. (1) Cleverness. Ephesians 4:14 says that they are "cunning in contriving error." (2) Prideful intelligence. (3) Lack of love. (4) Dishonesty in various forms. These are the very ingredients of the food that is on the table of demons, all of which is designed to undermine the faith of Jehovah's people.

14 And there is another aspect. To what have the apostates returned? In many cases, they have reentered the darkness of Christendom and its doctrines, such as the belief that all Christians go to heaven. Moreover, most no longer take a firm Scriptural stand regarding blood, neutrality, and the need to witness about God's Kingdom. We, though, have escaped the darkness of Babylon the Great, and we never want to return to it. (Revelation 18:2, 4) As loyal servants of Jehovah, why would we even want to peek at the propaganda put out by these rejecters of Jehovah's table who now verbally beat those who are helping us take in "healthful words"?-2 Timothy 1:13.

15 Some may be inquisitive about accusations that the apostates make. But we should take to heart the principle at Deuteronomy 12:30, 31. Here Jehovah through Moses warned the Israelites about what to avoid once they dispossessed the pagan inhabitants of the Promised Land. "Watch out for yourself for fear you may be entrapped after them, after they have been annihilated from before you, and for fear you may inquire respecting their gods, saying, 'How was it these nations used to serve their gods? And I, yes, I, will do the same way.' You must not do that way to Jehovah your God." Yes, Jehovah God knows how human curiosity works. Remember Eve, and also Lot's wife! (Luke 17:32; 1 Timothy 2:14) Let us never give ear to what the apostates are saying or doing. Rather, let us be busy building people up and loyally feeding at the table of Jehovah!

The truth a

Decidedly_Unsure

Posts by Decidedly_Unsure