Posts by hooberus

This is a question that many JWs seem to have when they are contemplating leaving the WT Society. The Society's answer is that there is nowhere else to go. What is a doubting JW to do?

Though I have never been a JW, I do have some thoughts.

I believe that it is possible for a person to have faith and a personal relationship with God apart from the WT organization. Many people had a relationship with God long before Charles Russell quit his clothing business and started printing his religious journal. The lamb's book of life is what counts, not being on a certain 19th century magazine subscription list.

The phrase "To where shall I go" is not in the Bible: The phrase "to whom shall we go" is. It is not talking leaving a "religious organization" but a person, Jesus Christ.

"Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God. John 6:68-69

Jesus is the way the truth and the life, not an "organization" even one calling itself "Jehovah's Organization"

"Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." John 14:6

Just because an organization uses the name Jehovah and claims to represent him does not make it so (many organizations besides the WT also use the name Jehovah and many others claim to be "God's Organization").

Many because the Watchtower has hurt them reject God the same time they reject the Society. The Watchtower has for many made faith in the Society the same as faith in God and the Bible. Thus, many give up faith in God and the Bible when they loose their faith in the Watchtower Organization.

I hope that many who leave will seek a personal relationship with God through Jesus Christ. Then perhaps someday they may be ready for a healthy Christian fellowship -one that exalts Jesus and not a particular "organization."

The Jesus of the scriptures is a far different being than the Jesus of the watchower, he is personally interested in people (I say this because of my experience with him). Those who wish to seek a relationship with God need to re-evaluate who they have been taught Jesus Christ is. The Christ of the scriptures is a far more poweful being than the Christ of the watchtower. seek him.

"Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me." Revelation 3:20

"And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last." Revelation 22:12-13

"He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus." Revelation 22:20

16

Adam 4000 BC or 5500 BC?

by greendawn in

jw
friends

the wts always propagates the idea that adam was created around 4000 bc and thus the world is 6000 years old and based on this they had set up the 1975 armageddon fiasco where many dubs got ripped off.

what they never say is that this dating is based on the hebrew masoretic text, there is however an older version of the old testament "the greek translation of the seventy" which for all we know may be the correct one and which makes mankind 7500 years old with adam created around 5500 bc.

not only this agrees better agrees with archaeological discoveries but it was also used by luke to write jesus's genealogy in his gospel.

hooberus

Being guided by someone who is either dishonest or incompetent in the field of science he is hypothesising on would seem to be foolish at the best of times. And idiotic the rest. And hooberus, this is NOT the first time I have shown you either DISHONESTY or INCOMPETENCE displayed on Creationistic sites... in fact, last time it was answeringenesis too. To your credit you eventually conceeded part of my point.
Despite having this website shown to be unreliable, you persist in using it to back up your beliefs. Is this "building a tower on sand", or "a dog returning to its vomit?"
Sadly you may well ignore this, or simply be evasive and dismissive, using some excuse or another to justify (to yourself) your failure to accept answeringenesis is NOT a reputable source for scientific information.
If you are knowingly using a persistently inaccurate source of information, you have to take responsibility for using that inaccurate information. You cannot plead ignorance.
Would Jesus use a scroll that, when examined, was persistently shown to be wrong? Would he carry on using a scroll that suited his beliefs even though he knew it was persistently wrong?
I really don't think so, and we might just be seeing an instance where an atheistic humanist shows greater faith in Jesus than a professed Christian Creation Apologist.
Sadly I doubt you will answer these questions, even though they are more than pertinant...

Abaddon, I have already spent considerable (more than enough I feel) time responding to several of your various charges against myself and my sources.

81

Evolution or creation.....

by searching4? in

i know what i was taught from the witnesses in the book evolution or creation,but is this an accurate portrayal of what evolutionists believe?

is it really that black or white?

evolution, meaning that god didn't have a plan, things just happened, or creation,god created adam, the first man?

hooberus

I may be away for around a week. However, I hope to deal specifically with your other points, the numerous evolutionary assumptions used in the Genetics arcticle (such as how claimed "substitutions" are "identified" based on the assumption of evolution to begin with, and then based on this how they are then "identified" as being caused by neutral, advantageous, deleterious, causes etc.), and also give reasons why such an arcticle should not be used as an attempted refutation of Haldane style poplation genetics calculations.

81

Evolution or creation.....

by searching4? in

i know what i was taught from the witnesses in the book evolution or creation,but is this an accurate portrayal of what evolutionists believe?

is it really that black or white?

evolution, meaning that god didn't have a plan, things just happened, or creation,god created adam, the first man?

hooberus

Furthermore, I don't think that you have shown it to be "erroneous" on Haldane's Dilemma .

well, lets go over it for the sake of the lurkers. as far as you are concerned, well, i imagine you will always be here trotting out the tired old misrepresentations of dishonest creationists. that is your choice, i suppose. it's too bad that there are people like you, in america and britain, throwing gratuitous obstacles in the way of education and scientific advancement. it's sadistic, but common.
the conclusion that evolution from an ape-like ancestor is not possible, made by ReMine via Haldane's Dilemma, is founded on mostly personal opinions. the fact of the matter is that there is no evidence at all regarding fixed and beneficial mutation, and the number of them required to explain the features and traits in existing fauna (animals like us).

anyroad, the argument basically goes like this:

it's an interpolation, or extrapolation, based on Haldane's 1957 paper. basically that there could not be more than 1667 fixed and beneficial mutations from the common ancestor that we share with pan troglodytes, aka chimps.

This is incorrect. ReMine's scenario is not about the number of beneficial mutations from the alleged common ancestor between humans and chimps (which supposedly lived around 5-7mya), but rather about the maximum number of selective changes possible within a single line of inheritance (extint ape 10 mya to human), over a much longer period of time -10 mya.

81

Evolution or creation.....

by searching4? in

i know what i was taught from the witnesses in the book evolution or creation,but is this an accurate portrayal of what evolutionists believe?

is it really that black or white?

evolution, meaning that god didn't have a plan, things just happened, or creation,god created adam, the first man?

hooberus

first assume man/ape shared ancestry is true,

this fred williams guy doesn't seem very bright.
it's not an unfounded, unsupported assumtion, like you creationists like to imply. this is a dishonest misrepresentation not only of evolutionary science, but also of scientific method in general. saying that assumptions like this are not based upon one of the mos solid bodies of evidence in the history of science, is called lying to the general public. scientists make educated estimates all the time based on hypotheses that have turned out to be factual.
you of course, ignore all this and go in for the tiny little gaps in the theory that are still left.

The point that Fred Williams was trying to make was simply that is that it is circular reasoning for evolutionists to respond to a mathematical argument against an evolutionary scenario (based on poplulation gentics calculations) with a figure determined from the assumption that the evolutionary scenario occurred to begin with. (http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/7/100588/1735179/post.ashx#1735179) I hope shortly to provide additional detail on this in responses to your other points.

81

Evolution or creation.....

by searching4? in

i know what i was taught from the witnesses in the book evolution or creation,but is this an accurate portrayal of what evolutionists believe?

is it really that black or white?

evolution, meaning that god didn't have a plan, things just happened, or creation,god created adam, the first man?

hooberus

you do, however, misrepresent the issue by saying that it is circular in nature for evolutionists to base their arguments on an estimate.

No, my point is that it is circular reasoning for evolutionists to respond to a mathematical argument against an evolutionary scenario (based on poplulation gentics calculations limiting the hypothetical maximum speed of selective evolution substitution to 1 gene per 300 generations) with a figure generated based on the assumption that the evolutionary scenario occurred to begin with.

let's put it this way: the modern estimate is better than haldane's 1957 estimate.

Haldane's speed limit was based on population genetics calculations similar to those still in use today by evolutionists.

a couple of replies to your points:
You seem to be saying that ReMine's book with all of its responses to various evolutionary claims (such as claims similar to those made by Theobald) found in it, should be dismissed as a resource if it is found to be in error on one of its subjects. I think that this is dismissive for a book of its length, debth, number of citations, etc.
um, it's all wrong. i have simply focused on one error.

You are declaring a book of over 500 pages in length as being "all wrong". How much of it have your read? Have you even held a copy of it?

I haven't seen any statements from ReMine that he will "only" debate evolutionists "when the moderators are creationists", and "willing to modify and delete posts at will."
it's not what he says he does that matters, it what he actually does. not only is he intellectually dishonest, but he is incapable of debating on the spot.

http://www1.minn.net/~science/discuss.htm

ReMine never made the "assumption" that the "majority" of changes would be due to selection.
then, my dear man, why don't you show what it was he assumed it was due to.

My point above was in response to the talkorigins statements that errantly claimed that ReMine made the "assumption" that the differences between living humans and chimps would be all be due to "selection." This was incorrect since ReMines scenario was not based not based on the differences between living humans and chimps, and most importantly ReMine never made the "assumption" that the differences between animals (in evolution) would be due solely to selective evolution (In fact ReMines book also has an entire chapter on neutral evolution pointing out the reasons why prominent evolutionists (such as Kimura) believe that most substitutions would have to be non-selective.)

ReMines example dealt with the maximum number of selective changes within a single line of inheritance (extint ape 10 mya to human), therefore no "doubling the difference" should have been done.
so, in one breath you say he never assumed selection, and in the next you say that it's about selective changes. i am confused. then again it could be that you made a mistake.

I made no mistake here. Each of my points dealt with a different issue.

My earlier point: "ReMine never made the "assumption" that the "majority" of changes would be due to selection" -was in response to the talkorigins claim that ReMine made the "assumption" that the differences in evolution between humans and chimps would be largely due to "selection"- an assumption that he did not make.

My other statement: "ReMines example dealt with the maximum number of selective changes within a single line of inheritance (extint ape 10 mya to human), therefore no "doubling the difference" should have been done" -dealt with the specific issue of selective substitution limits for a 10 mya period of time.

Your other points I hope to deal with shortly.

81

Evolution or creation.....

by searching4? in

i know what i was taught from the witnesses in the book evolution or creation,but is this an accurate portrayal of what evolutionists believe?

is it really that black or white?

evolution, meaning that god didn't have a plan, things just happened, or creation,god created adam, the first man?

hooberus

J. C. Fay, G. J. Wyckoff and C.-I. Wu: Positive and Negative Selection on the Human Genome,Genetics 158, 1227-1234. 2001.

Some Evolutionists (ie: Scott Page) have implied that one of the (below) results of this study- a claimed "1 advantageous substitution every

200 years since humans separated from old world monkeys 30 million years ago" has somehow falsified the Haldane population genetics calculated maximum "speed limit" of 1 beneficial substitution every 300 generations - every 6,000 years with a 20 year generation time.

Therefore, a large proportion, 35%, of amino acid substitutions between humans and old world monkeys are estimated to have been driven by positive selection. Extrapolating this proportion to the total amount of coding DNA in the genome (5 x 10 7 bp) yields an estimate of up to 1 advantageous substitution every 200 years since humans separated from old world monkeys 30 million years ago ( L I 1997 ).
http://www.genetics.org/cgi/content/full/158/3/1227

The problem with using this study is the fact that the above figure of "1 advantageous substitution every 200 years since humans separated from old world monkeys 30 million years ago" appears to have been calculated in part by comparing the differences between humans and monkeys combined with the assumption to begin with that the evolution of humans and monkeys from a common ancestor had actually occurred within the specified amount of time (30 million years). For example the arcticle says:

To estimate the fraction of DNA variation within and between species that has been under positive and negative selection we compare amino acid and synonymous polymorphism from two recent surveys of human DNA variation ( C ARGILL et al. 1999 ; H ALUSHKA et al. 1999 ) and from divergence between humans and old world monkeys.

Thus, the problem of circularity arrises in that such an estimate was calculated with the assumption of the "fact" of evolution of humans from an ancient common ancestor with monkeys 30 mya to begin with. Therefore the resulting calculations of a "rate" of advantageous substitutions is not independant evidence against a mathematical population genetics speed limit alculation proposed to test this very thing.

Fred Williams was the original person to point this out:
"So what is the problem here? The authors of the genetics study are arriving at their estimate of 10 generations by first assuming that man and ape share a common ancestor. Their DNA sequence comparison work is based on this belief. If this assumption is not true, then their calculation is worthless. Haldane’s estimate of 300 generations per substitution is based on a mathematical model that need not rely on such assumptions of the validity of evolution.

I doubt if the authors of the study would agree with Page that their estimate invalidates "Haldane’s Dilemma". If they did, it would be a classic case of circular reasoning: first assume man/ape shared ancestry is true, then arrive at an estimate that is based on this assumption, then conclude it refutes a mathematical model that contradicts the initial assumption of man/ape shared ancestry." http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/articles_debates/page_refutation.htm

Unfortunately, Page never did seem to grasp the basic problem with using the above study as an attempted refutation of population genetics calculations limits for a proposed evolutionary scenario.

81

Evolution or creation.....

by searching4? in

i know what i was taught from the witnesses in the book evolution or creation,but is this an accurate portrayal of what evolutionists believe?

is it really that black or white?

evolution, meaning that god didn't have a plan, things just happened, or creation,god created adam, the first man?

hooberus

hooberus,
Responses to many of these claims can be found in a variety of literature. For example, several of them are dealt with in the publication The Biotic Message.

the self-published biotic message by ReMine, and the subsequent argument regarding Haldane's so-called dilemma, has been shown to be based upon erroneous assumptions. i don't think it's a good idea to post "replies" to the talk origins article by Theobald in the Biotic Message, if the Biotic Message, via Haldane's Dilemma has been shown to be erroneous.

You seem to be saying that ReMine's book with all of its responses to various evolutionary claims (such as claims similar to those made by Theobald) found in it, should be dismissed as a resource if it is found to be in error on one of its subjects. I think that this is dismissive for a book of its length, debth, number of citations, etc.

Furthermore, I don't think that you have shown it to be "erroneous" on Haldane's Dilemma .

here is some material that may help in showing that The Biotic Message by ReMine should not be regarded as authoritative. ReMine himself, an electrical engineer, will only debate evolutionists when the moderators are creationists, and willing to modify and delete posts at will. here is an example: http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/encounter_with_remine_rr.htm

I haven't seen any statements from ReMine that he will "only" debate evolutionists "when the moderators are creationists", and "willing to modify and delete posts at will." Such an assertion is even contradicted on his site:

"The debate essays are short, (limited to 1500 words each), and had two moderators (one from each side). The debate was held jointly on two opposing host websites: TCCSA and New Mexicans for Science and Reason. The debate featured Dave Thomas (evolutionist) versus Walter ReMine (Intelligent Design theorist), and took seven months, ending in April 2003. http://www1.minn.net/~science/discuss.htmThe

here is the material i mentioned:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB121.html

This talkorigins material is itself "erroneous" : For example it errantly claims:

ReMine (1993), who promotes the claim, makes several invalid assumptions. His model is contradicted by the following:
The vast majority of differences would probably be due to genetic drift, not selection.

ReMine never made the "assumption" that the "majority" of changes would be due to selection.

Human and ape genes both would be diverging from the common ancestor, doubling the difference.

ReMines example dealt with the maximum number of selective changes within a single line of inheritance (extint ape 10 mya to human), therefore no "doubling the difference" should have been done.

ReMine has specifically addressed the points in the talkorigins material: http://www1.minn.net/~science/talk_origins.htm

also. the following papers do serious damage to the various claims of creationists who say that because of Haldane's Dilemma, we cannot have shared a common ancestor with apes:
J. C. Fay, G. J. Wyckoff and C.-I. Wu: Positive and Negative Selection on the Human Genome,Genetics 158, 1227-1234. 2001.
and
Sexual Recombination and the Power of Natural Selection

William R. Rice* and Adam K. Chippindale 2001 Science 294:555-559

I don't believe that these papers (sited by evolutionist Scott Page) do "serious damage to the various claims of creationists" I'll try to explain why shortly.

16

Adam 4000 BC or 5500 BC?

by greendawn in

jw
friends

the wts always propagates the idea that adam was created around 4000 bc and thus the world is 6000 years old and based on this they had set up the 1975 armageddon fiasco where many dubs got ripped off.

what they never say is that this dating is based on the hebrew masoretic text, there is however an older version of the old testament "the greek translation of the seventy" which for all we know may be the correct one and which makes mankind 7500 years old with adam created around 5500 bc.

not only this agrees better agrees with archaeological discoveries but it was also used by luke to write jesus's genealogy in his gospel.

hooberus

http://www.trueorigin.org/camplist.asp#dating