Witnesses suffer from the same problems other churches have in educated, industrialized nations: too many people see through the bullshit. I remember reading a yearbook account about how Iceland (a highly atheist nation) has had little to no growth at all since missionaries first arrived ~80 years ago. The same things are happening across Europe and Australia. Of course, the message has never appealed more to the poor, uneducated third world, so the vast majority of the increase is coming from Latin America, Africa, and Southeast Asia. The heyday of Jehovah's Witnesses has come and gone in this country. 1975 was the deathblow. People here are slowing down, getting bored, and starting to think about things. The vast majority need to take anti-depressants just to cope. Of course, the R&F will just blame Satan and the world for all their stresses.
B_Deserter
JoinedPosts by B_Deserter
-
62
August KM provides solid evidence of declining JW morale
by sir82 inas you may or may not recall, the february '07 km (for the us) had a huge article, taking up the full 4 page insert, on the "blessings" of auxiliary pioneering.
the part covering that insert took up the entire service meeting (aside form the announcements).
the "encouragement" was that the us branch had set a goal of 160,000 auxiliary pioneers for the month of april ("if only one of every 6 publishers signs up, we can make it!")..
-
-
-
125
?Please explain Evolution to me in simple terms
by Guest with Questions inand please dont give me links to read.
i dont want a complicated version; just a very simple explanation on the theory of evolution, and if possible, in your own words.
many of us are very ignorant on this subject and it seems that a few here are very knowledgeable so i hope you can help me and others also.. also if you believe in the theory of common descent, could you explain that to me also?
-
-
B_Deserter
Part of understanding evolution is not listening to creationists who incorrectly define it.
1. Evolution has no more chance involved than the wind blowing from the west. Natural selection is the OPPOSITE of chance. Many species do not survive because their environment changes, and they are no longer suited to survive in it. A good example is the varying hue of skin color in human beings. Native people are darker in areas where they experience more sunlight. This prevents the body from getting too much UV radiation. When Homo Habilis became Homo Ergaster, he likely lost much of his hair, exposing his lighter-colored skin. Of course, not everyone is born with the exact same shade of skin, so the darker H. Ergaster people were able to survive longer in the hot sun, giving them more time and opportunity to reproduce. Eventually, the light-skinned Hominids were bred out of the population in favor of the dark-skinned. Just the opposite happened when Homo Erectus migrated to Europe. Sunlight was far more scarce, and humans need the reaction of sunlight with Vitamin D to produce calcium. A dark-skinned person living in northern europe would have weaker muscles and bones than a light-skinned person. Thus, the stronger light-skinned population outbred the weaker dark-skinned.
2. Many creationists will state about evolution "well, it's just a theory, so it hasn't been proven." This is based on a misunderstanding of the words "theory" and "fact" in a scientific context. You may also want to note that Gravity is also a theory but you don't see anti-gravitationists running around saying "Its just the THEORY!!!," trying to get their alternative hypothesis of intelligent everything-is-pulled-to-earth-by-invisible-faeries to have equal time with gravity in the science classroom. In the scientific world, a theory is a framework to which facts are applied. If you throw a ball up, gravity will pull it back to the ground, that is a fact. HOW gravity pulls it down to the ground is the theory part, which is still being debated today. Likewise, many animals today have common ancestors, fossil evidence proves this to be a fact. The collection of these facts for the last 150 years have been pulled together in a theory called evolution. Again, HOW evolution occurred is continuously being debated, that is the theory part.
3. The false dichotomy argument is also very common. It goes something like this: if creationists can make it seem that evolution is false, then they win by default, even without having to prove one bit of their belief (and they can't) at all. A popular spin on this is "scientist disagree, therefore, we are right." Carl Sagan once said, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." The belief that an invisible magician the sky just waved his hands one week and *poof* everything was here qualifies as an extraordinary claim. To make evolution seem false, they will often misquote scientists and point out that they disagree with each other on evolution. Duh! It's science! Science is all about disagreeing, providing supporting evidence, and, if that evidence is sound, the rest of the scientific community accepts it. The only debates going on in science about evolution are HOW it occurred; almost all scientists are in agreement that it at least DID occur. I also would like to point out that creationists disagree with how creation occurred. Some believe in literal 24-hour-days. Others believe the length of a day in Genesis could be thousands, even millions of years. Still, others believe God created life by means of evolution. Which is it creationists? If you guys disagree so much, maybe your belief isn't so true after all! (Note: I'm being sarcastic, pointing out the faulty logic creationists uses against evolution).
I liken the creation/evolution debate to a jigsaw puzzle that no longer has a box (so you can't see what it's supposed to be) that is being put together by Science, with Creationism looking on. When science started, Creationism had already decided that the picture the puzzle creates is a unicorn. As the puzzle pieces become assembled, Science said "I think you're wrong, it looks like this puzzle is shaping up to be a rhinoceros, not a unicorn." Creationism snapped, "You must have an ulterior motive to believe it's a rhinoceros, you just don't want to be accountable to the unicorn once the puzzle is complete! You can't PROVE it's NOT a unicorn yet!" "Okay, that's fine, let's just keep putting the puzzle together and we'll be able to tell for sure," science responded. 150 years later (it's a BIG puzzle), science has completed much of it. The more and more pieces it places together, the more and more the puzzle is beginning to look like a rhinoceros. Livid at the possibility of being wrong, Creationism scrutinizes every piece science places. When science gets a piece wrong, it shrieks "SEE!!! You put the piece in the wrong place! It IS a unicorn after all!" Science just shrugs, finds the right spot for it, and continues on. -
23
So who is this "Jaracz" person?
by B_Deserter ini saw his name pop up a few places around here.
whats the deal?
-
-
B_Deserter
What is with Governing Body members having actors' names? I could understand Don Adams, but Guy Pierce?
-
23
So who is this "Jaracz" person?
by B_Deserter ini saw his name pop up a few places around here.
whats the deal?
-
-
B_Deserter
I just looked it up and read about him. It's funny I never bothered to remember the names of the GB. Looks like the WTBS has a tyrant on its hands. I wonder if they're going to start setting dates again.
-
23
So who is this "Jaracz" person?
by B_Deserter ini saw his name pop up a few places around here.
whats the deal?
-
-
B_Deserter
Any less cryptic answers? Does he have something to do with the society? Seriously I'm in the dark here.
-
23
So who is this "Jaracz" person?
by B_Deserter ini saw his name pop up a few places around here.
whats the deal?
-
-
B_Deserter
I saw his name pop up a few places around here. Whats the deal?
-
20
DESIGN WITHOUT A DESIGNER??? tsk-tsk.
by karvel inhot on the heels of behe's latest comes the aug,15 wt: what does design in nature reveal?
they even used a nautilus for their cover.
yikes.. cover:.
-
-
-
15
should i go?
by bigdreaux inokay, as most of you know, my sisters and brother in law are in town for a wedding.
the girl getting married is a really good friend of mine.
we kind of sorta dated, but, since she was not scriptually free, and i wasn't about to wait for that, nothing ever really came of it.
-
-
B_Deserter
Have you considered going to the wedding only and not the reception? I have a friends wedding coming up and that's my plan. Just be sure to get there right before it starts, find a quiet seat in the back, and just not go to the reception afterwards. That way, you can avoid any deep embarrassing conversations and still show your friend that you care. I'm sure she'll understand if you don't stick around.
-
5
Herbal lore, natural remedies, and information on fasting, and meditation
by MadTiger inhttp://www.3rd-millennium-inc.com/natural/
-
-
B_Deserter
I second WTWizard's comment. Often, herbalists and doctors resort to a false dichotomy argument: "they're wrong, therefore, I am right."
-
20
DESIGN WITHOUT A DESIGNER??? tsk-tsk.
by karvel inhot on the heels of behe's latest comes the aug,15 wt: what does design in nature reveal?
they even used a nautilus for their cover.
yikes.. cover:.
-
-
B_Deserter
What about God? The Witnesses believe that God has always been. Therefore, God didn't have a designer. So if a God complex and knowledgeable enough to create the universe didn't need a designer, then why does the relatively simple universe need one?