Posts by Galileo

360

Why Evolution Should Be Taught

by hamilcarr in

jw
friends

why evolutionary biology is a crucial part of the curriculum .... .

optimism in evolution.

by olivia judsonlondon.

Galileo

Appeal to authority?
If you can't think of any, than you must admit that evolution is not science. It is religion/philosophy.

Not at all. I jotted my reply quickly on my phone frm Starbucks on my way to work this morning. I didn't have time for a lengthy response. My point wasn't that I couldn't think of any, it was that there was no need, as there are numerous examples that have not only been thought of but actually tested in laboratories. I fully expected that others could provide examples of these if examples were asked for. I'm glad to see my faith was not misplaced. Nice job as always Derek.

360

Why Evolution Should Be Taught

by hamilcarr in

jw
friends

why evolutionary biology is a crucial part of the curriculum .... .

optimism in evolution.

by olivia judsonlondon.

Galileo

"So, what tests would you propose to falsify evolution?" I don't have to propose any. Better minds than mine have been doing so for over a hundred years. It's why it is one of the most well established theories in modern science. It is more proven than the theory of gravity.

360

Why Evolution Should Be Taught

by hamilcarr in

jw
friends

why evolutionary biology is a crucial part of the curriculum .... .

optimism in evolution.

by olivia judsonlondon.

Galileo

I find it quite interesting that one theory 'should' be taught but the other theory 'should not'.

This very statement shows your scientific ignorance. Creationism is nowhere near a theory in the scientific sense. Intelligent Design isn't even a scientific question. Science is based largely on falsifiability. So, what tests would you propose to falsify creationism? If you can't think of any, than you must admit that creationism is not science. It is religion.

360

Why Evolution Should Be Taught

by hamilcarr in

jw
friends

why evolutionary biology is a crucial part of the curriculum .... .

optimism in evolution.

by olivia judsonlondon.

Galileo

What a terrible, terrible idea. Don't teach the foundations of modern biology simply because some fundamentalists want their myths taught instead! You don't have to imagine how catastrophic the results of that sort of glorification of ignorance would be; large parts of your country amply demonstrate the results. Teachers who don't teach but let their students "discover on their own" are not doing their job. The embarrassing levels of scientific ignorance in your country will not be remedied by not teaching the basics of science until university level.

As much as I hate to see someone from another country trashing the U.S., I have to agree with Derek. I didn't even have to look at who he was responding to or where they were from, I knew he was referring to Americans. What does that tell you? We Americans should be deeply embarassed about the accepted ignorance of our primary school students. I myself went through all of my school years believing evolution was nonsense believed by zealots. It wasn't until I was in my mid to late twenties when I took it upon myself to educate myself about evolution. What an eye opener! The dishonesty of the religious fanatics that wrote anti-evoltion information for the uneducated masses to disseminate to their children was staggering. How can any child be expected to "decide for themselves" when their families are hiding the truth and filling their heads with religious propaganda? If I had been exposed to the true theory of evolution in school, instead of the rediculous characature I was getting at home, I may have been able to see through the other nonsense much sooner as well.

13

How to Install Windows Vista in Two Minutes

by brinjen in

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=fvbf9togwno.

.

wish i'd thought of that one!

Galileo

I was a beta tester for Windows Vista, so I have been using it now for over two years in some form or another. I have never understood the complaints people had about it. At launch, it had some incompatibility problems with some very old hardware, a few programs like Quickbooks (which is the fault of the software developers that wanted to force people to buy new versions of their software instead of patching their old stuff), and some sound cards. All of these issues were fixed long ago. Vista is far superior to XP on a modern computer. My computer is four years old and runs Vista blazingly fast and is far more reliable than it ever was with XP. Bashing Vista has become the fashionable thing to do, but it is unjustified. The guy in the video that says Vista was incompatible with everything in his brand new computer is a liar, a moron, or both.

Have you seen "The Mojave Experiment?" http://www.mojaveexperiment.com/

81

How do you feel now? EVOLUTION OR CREATION??

by chuckyy in

jw
friends

as jws we were no doubt staunch creationists.

but how do you feel now??

do you still opt for creation or do you now feel evolution offers the right answer.

Galileo

Behe makes some points that seem irrefutable about ID

I wish I had seen this earlier. "Seem" is the operative word here. Behe's arguments have been thoroughly refuted in the scientific literature. I recommend reading the transcripts of the Kitzmiller trial, in which Behe is shown to be a total fraud. Here are some highlights from Wikipedia:

Under cross examination, Behe conceded that "there are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred". [31] During this testimony Behe conceded that the definition of 'theory' as he applied it to intelligent design was so loose that astrology would qualify as a theory by definition as well. [32] Also while under oath, Behe admitted that his simulation modelling of evolution with Snoke had in fact shown that complex biochemical systems requiring multiple interacting parts for the system to function and requiring multiple, consecutive and unpreserved mutations to be fixed in a population could evolve within 20,000 years, even if the parameters of the simulation were rigged to make that outcome as unlikely as possible. [33] [34]
John E. Jones III, the judge of the case, in his final ruling relied heavily upon Behe's testimony for the defense in his judgment for the plaintiffs, citing:
"Consider, to illustrate, that Professor Behe remarkably and unmistakably claims that the plausibility of the argument for ID depends upon the extent to which one believes in the existence of God." [5]
"As no evidence in the record indicates that any other scientific proposition's validity rests on belief in God, nor is the Court aware of any such scientific propositions, Professor Behe's assertion constitutes substantial evidence that in his view, as is commensurate with other prominent ID leaders, ID is a religious and not a scientific proposition." [5]
"First, defense expert Professor Fuller agreed that ID aspires to "change the ground rules" of science and lead defense expert Professor Behe admitted that his broadened definition of science, which encompasses ID, would also embrace astrology. Moreover, defense expert Professor Minnich acknowledged that for ID to be considered science, the ground rules of science have to be broadened to allow consideration of supernatural forces." [6]
"What is more, defense experts concede that ID is not a theory as that term is defined by the NAS and admit that ID is at best "fringe science" which has achieved no acceptance in the scientific community." [7]
"We therefore find that Professor Behe's claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large." [8]
"ID proponents primarily argue for design through negative arguments against evolution, as illustrated by Professor Behe’s argument that “irreducibly complex” systems cannot be produced through Darwinian, or any natural, mechanisms. However, … arguments against evolution are not arguments for design. Expert testimony revealed that just because scientists cannot explain today how biological systems evolved does not mean that they cannot, and will not, be able to explain them tomorrow. As Dr. Padian aptly noted, “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”… Irreducible complexity is a negative argument against evolution, not proof of design, a point conceded by defense expert Professor Minnich." [35]
"Professor Behe’s concept of irreducible complexity depends on ignoring ways in which evolution is known to occur. Although Professor Behe is adamant in his definition of irreducible complexity when he says a precursor “missing a part is by definition nonfunctional,” what he obviously means is that it will not function in the same way the system functions when all the parts are present. For example in the case of the bacterial flagellum, removal of a part may prevent it from acting as a rotary motor. However, Professor Behe excludes, by definition, the possibility that a precursor to the bacterial flagellum functioned not as a rotary motor, but in some other way, for example as a secretory system." [36]
"Professor Behe has applied the concept of irreducible complexity to only a few select systems: (1) the bacterial flagellum; (2) the blood-clotting cascade; and (3) the immune system. Contrary to Professor Behe’s assertions with respect to these few biochemical systems among the myriad existing in nature, however, Dr. Miller presented evidence, based upon peer-reviewed studies, that they are not in fact irreducibly complex." [37]
"...proponents assert that they refuse to propose hypotheses on the designer’s identity, do not propose a mechanism, and the designer, he/she/it/they, has never been seen. ...

A good summary of the trial and the absolute obliteration of Behe's arguments can also be found in the Nova "Judgment Day" episode I referenced earlier.

81

How do you feel now? EVOLUTION OR CREATION??

by chuckyy in

jw
friends

as jws we were no doubt staunch creationists.

but how do you feel now??

do you still opt for creation or do you now feel evolution offers the right answer.

Galileo

Evolution is as proven as anything can be; the "theory" of evolution is supported by more experimental evidence then the "theory" of gravity or the germ theory of disease. For anyone still on the fence, Nova did a fantastic two part episode called "Judgment Day" about the Dover trial that showcases some fantastic information about Evolution. You can bittorent it.

25

What were the key articles that helped you leave (or articles you love)?

by jwfacts in

i am looking for "best-of" articles about jws and the watchtower society.

what were the best articles that you remember reading.

any topic will do.

Galileo

Besides your site, I really like 607v587.com The correspondence there is very telling, both about the facts of the erroneous 607 date, and the Societies' mindset and attitude towards those with questions.

46

Is age just a number? 30 year difference between partners....

by LouBelle in

jw
friends

a collegue of mine, a mother of 19 year old twins is distressed.

her one son has been going out with an older women (this came to light when the other twin was sick and tired of all the lying going on) the truth is that the older women turns out to be her very good friend, who is now 49 years old.

let's call her madam x.. madam x is a very '"sweet"" woman - i know her, as i used to work with her.

Galileo

It's hard enough getting through this life. If they're making each other happy, I say good for them. Maybe it's a mistake, but if it is, it's their mistake to make.

66

Why Can't People Just Show Appreciation For This Place???

by minimus in

jw
friends

i've been reading a few pages of threads from saturday until today and i can't understand why some,(actually very few) try to damage this site.

this is one of a handful of (ex)jw sites that really helps people get out of the organization.

the interaction that we have here shows anyone how we can leave the so- called "truth" and enjoy life!

Galileo

I'm not just talking about having an agenda in pushing gay themes or porn of any type. I just don't understand why people can't be respectful of one another. Ultimately, it should be about helping a JW get out and stay out of the Organization.

I absolutely agree. I'm glad the mods removed the porn in question before I was assaulted with it over my morning coffee. Moderating a forum such as this one must be a difficult thing. You want to allow freedom of expression as much as possible, yet you also need to make the members feel welcome. Personally, if explicit images or videos were cropping up frequently and unexpectedly in threads on this site, I and many others would not come back. Certainly someone trying to find help escaping the mind control of the WTS would not come back. I think Simon walks this tightrope very well.