bohm

Joined

• started 191 topics
• posted 7,847 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by bohm

• 
  9

  sad email from italian Bethel

  by Albert Einstein in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i just recived this email from a very lovely guy who works in italian bethel.

  we met several years ago, he stayed in our house and we had wonderful time.... he really is a great guy and i feel very sad for him now.... yes, jehovah is really "speeding up" the work in these last days..... albert.

  hello albert.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  bohm

  btw albert, you have a pm.
• 
  18

  Evidence In Favor Of Bloodless Surgery Mounts

  by Bangalore in

  1. watchtower
  2. medical

  evidence in favor of bloodless surgery mounts.. .

  http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/281102.

  bangalore.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  bohm

  hmm. it seem pretty solid, but i wonder: if the doctors are performing a bloodless surgery, they puncture an artery and has to administer blood as a last-minute precaution or the patient will die because of low red blood cell count, is that still counted in the statistics as a bloodless surgery?
• 
  29

  Mitochondrial Eve for dummies

  by bohm in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  hey!.

  introduction.

  here is a quote some of you may recognize:.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  bohm

  Inkling: True :-).

  Update! I messed up (slightly). ME is ofcourse the most reason common maternal ancestor to all living human, not just women. it doesnt really matter much - just consider the set of mothers of ALL living human, and apply the argument from above.
• 
  29

  Mitochondrial Eve for dummies

  by bohm in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  hey!.

  introduction.

  here is a quote some of you may recognize:.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  bohm

  Hey!

  Introduction

  Here is a quote some of you may recognize:

  "I just saw an article the other day about the mitochondrial Eve (ME) in Nature, I think its funny that after putting down evolution for so long, scientists are now seriously considering we all descented from one woman, just like the genesis said all along! Times are surely changing!"

  The problem with this statement is that it is kind of true, but it leaves the JW with an impression that science is finally beginning to dig up evidence for genesis, but scientists are just to dense to interpret it correctly. That is blatantly false. Let me give an example:

  Both genesis AND evolution predict humans existed 5000 years ago, and that is what we find. However no creationist would think this is evidence that support creation over evolution.

  Yet the ME, despite the fancy name, is nothing more than that situation in a different setting, and that is why no serious creationist would use it as an argument. So refuting it to a family member consist of nothing more than explaining them what it mean.

  Mitochondrial Eve for dummies

  Consider a group of 3 random woman and the following question: How many mothers do these women have?. The answer may be 1 (they are all sisters), 2 (two of them are sisters) or 3 (none of them are sisters). The key observation is that 3 women can never have 4 or more mothers. Thats it! Applying this on a greater setting, we can say for sure that a million woman will never have more than a million mothers, infact it is quite likely they have fewer since (presumeably) some of them are sisters.

  This quickly lead us to the mitochondrial Eve: First, consider all women alive today. Secondly, consider this groups mothers - notice the two groups need not be disjoint (in case a mom and daughter is alive at the same time). We can apply our key observation to the second group and say with confidence that this group cannot be LARGER than the first. We may repeat this again and consider the group of mothers of all the women in the second group - again this cannot be LARGER than the number of women in the second group.

  If we repeat this operation again and again we get groups of women where each group cannot be larger than the last - and in general it will get smaller each time a woman has more than one daughter [thus a reduction by 1/4th or something like that over each generation is not entirely unreasonable a priori]. At some point we are left with just one woman, whom we call the mitochondrial Eve. Whats special with her is that she is the direct descendant (on the maternal side) to all woman alive today, thats why she is called Eve.

  The properties of ME

  This emediately allow us to clear away some misconceptions. First off

  Nobody has ever been surpriced by the existence of a ME. It is a logical conclusion that she must exist, just like it is a logical conclusion humans existed on earth 5000 years ago. If our genomen didnt show signs of a ME, we would need to come up with some pretty funky rationalizations to make evolution work.

  Secondly, the ME was not the only woman alive at the time - plenty of other women coexisted and some have living descendants. The mitochondrial eve only talks about a strictly maternal lineage.

  Thirdly, you can do the same argument with men instead of women and get 'Adam'. This does not mean they knew each other.

  Fourth, The reason scientists care about this is that one can use these observation together with statistics and genetics to get an idea about how man evolved. What we find is that the ME lived about 200'000 years ago, and 'Adam' lived about 50'000 years ago. Furthermore, it allow us to trace how humans have migrated when the world was populated. This is why no creationist bring up the issue on his own - he know it is very strong evidence against the creation myth, and the only real defense is 'well the water canopy magically fix everything that has to do with genetics, without leaving a trace!'.

  Fifth, The dangerous word 'mitochondrial' refers to a certain part of the genomen found in humans which are only inherited from mom to daughter - this, and other properties, make the statistical analysis easier and is the reason why scientist work with Eve rather than Adam.
• 
  21

  Did you ever feel dissatisfied by the quality of 'proof' from the FDS?

  by bohm in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  hey!.

  i have tried to debate evolution/ark a couple of times with witnesses.

  two of these were elders, and one had the benefit of conversing with me over mail; he also showed an interest and knowledge on some scientific subjects that told me he had studied it a bit by himself.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  bohm

  LEAVINGWT: Actually, on several occasions i have taken myself in doing something similar when i read long 'proofs' of doctrines like 607: I stop to think because i 'know' it is wrong and just look for flaws.. strange it is so easy to fall pray to such a crappy attitude.

  JWOODS: A lady recently told me another theory of why God created dinosaurs. Apparently, they were made so they could stomp around and fertelize the ground with their dead bodies so that other animals could live on it. I asked her how the dinosours could find food on a earth if they had to die to make it fertile, and that confused her so much she told me that the creation story was written in a way people at the time would understand. I didnt press the subject. I think the experience with the CO cannot be told to many times :-D .

  NEVERENDINGJOURNEY: First off, i think i would have been an EXCELENT jw. Secondly, even with a BS degree in physics and a very skeptical attitude, the arguments in Life: How did it get here was pretty convincing to me. I mean, i didnt buy all of it, but i remember putting it down and thinking: "Damn, didnt know there was so much stuff about evolution we didnt know, these creationists have a pretty good case". So my question is only what the mental process is if one eg. meet a biologist in field service who take his time listening to the arguments and present contrary evidence - im trying to understand it, so i can become better at asking questions that actually provoke thought.
• 
  79

  ARE YOU READY FOR THE FINISH LINE? GB Talk

  by Girlie in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  and then, immediately after babylon the great is destroyed, almost without a break, look at matt 24 :29 -immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened and the moon will not give its light and the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken.. now in what sense will the sun be destroyed and the moon not give its light?

  are you ready for that?.

  and you'll fall across the finish line into the new world !

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  bohm

  its unbelieveable.. he directly says that you shouldnt spend money on your kids education, but should give it all to the WTS. And this is the religion that put others down for passing a collection plate?!.

  Another thing - he goes a lot further in saying that only jw's will be saved, and only the JWs who did ALL THEY COULD AND NEVER HAD DOUBTS. Im not a psychologist, but that sure sound like an unhealthy way to use fear to alter the way people think...

  Actually, i think it could be fun to try and delete certain telling key sections and replace jehovahs witnesses by 'Catholics' or something else, and then see what a jw would think of it.
• 
  21

  Did you ever feel dissatisfied by the quality of 'proof' from the FDS?

  by bohm in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  hey!.

  i have tried to debate evolution/ark a couple of times with witnesses.

  two of these were elders, and one had the benefit of conversing with me over mail; he also showed an interest and knowledge on some scientific subjects that told me he had studied it a bit by himself.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  bohm

  Hey!

  I have tried to debate evolution/ark a couple of times with witnesses. Two of these were elders, and one had the benefit of conversing with me over mail; he also showed an interest and knowledge on some scientific subjects that told me he had studied it a bit by himself. (it was him who brought up evolution in a pretty cocky, 'what is it you do not understand', manner).

  The thing is that at every instance it has basically been a rehashing of the same conversation. I have been met with the same wrong arguments taken from "Life, how did it get here?" book as well as various creationist misunderstandings. I have yet to meet a jw who could DEFINE evolution remotely correct.

  Because of this i have never really tried to 'proove' anything. I have never gone into the dirty details regarding birdlike/reptilelike traits of archaeoptoryx, which kind of fossilisation process that may occur over many years and which over few, etc. An example: The other day a guy wrote me and told me a 'proof' man is not created is the fact that we have 46 chromosomes and apes have 46 - you got to have a little background to know why this is funny.

  It is not that the JW arguments against evolution are not supported by evidence, or contradicted by other evidence. I think everybody could live with that situation. It is that most of the time they never had any hope of being true, because they are build on wrong assumptions, misquotations or lies to begin with. I dont understand how a person can be sattisfied when the FDS, Gods own chanel, supplies arguments a snotty 20-something years old guy can shoot down by saying "well, it would indeed be critical if evolutionist didnt have any theory of how emotions could have evolved, but they do and they have had for 50 years, just google it!".

  It is my impression that Jehovahs Witnesses in general care a lot for the truth (not only with a capital T). They believe they have found it, they are proud they have done so, and when they fearlessly jump in to defend creationism, they do so because they truly believe the Creation book and the litterature have supplied them with scienfically sound arguments, and that being right will negate whatever knowledge the other party may have.
  What i am trying to understand is what mental process is triggered when it turns out that the other party not only have strong arguments, but are able to pick apart Gods own chancel's arguments one by one as being riddled with errors.

  What did you do? Did you just shrug it off as yourself not having enough understanding of the FDS's arguments? That satan was pulling the strings? That the FDS was 'dumbing down' things to make it easier for some to understand?
• 
  183

  Hubby is Researching 607...

  by cognac in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  would you say that's the beginning of the end?

  hubby's researching if the beginning date can be proven from the bible its starting date is 607. clearly, he won't find the answer.... here's hoping he will see the light... .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  bohm

  I know this is like nailing pudding to the wall, but how about writing eg. the authors of the program, explain why this discussion is important and ask them if they agree on the dataanalysis?
• 
  38

  Do the celestial positions on BM 33478 help to prove Artaxerxes I's 20th year was 455 BCE? (For 'scholar')

  by AnnOMaly in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  this is a spin off from this thread: http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/jw/friends/182714/4/hubby-is-researching-607.

  background.

  for the past three years, carl jonsson has been critiquing rolf furuli's 'oslo' chronology in an interdisciplinary journal called chronology and catastrophism review.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  bohm

  I have been reading Scholars posts for half a year now, and i think this definately marks the day where he declared interlectual bankrupcy by resolving to name-calling to a throughoutly researched critisism.
  Scholar: if you were debating evolution, would you really think it was fair if someone demanded you wrote darwin and then waited for an answer?

  You got three options now a) Give a proper response. b) Admit you are unable to properly answer this point because of your lack of knowledge. c) Admit defeat.

  At any rate i think you should begin by apolegizing for your stupid sexist remark...
• 
  22

  Creationist Evolution

  by GapingMouth in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i've been having some small but effective chats with my wife of late.

  she is, i hope, starting to think about some things a bit better now regarding the wts.

  when i told her of the rule about not hugging in the prayer, she thought it so absurd and thought i was telling lies until she saw it herself.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  bohm

  kriptonian7: hey! welcome to the forum!

  When i read your post it bring up some things, so please dont think that i want to flame you, i just want to offer you a piece of my mind.

  A very common problem in the evolution debate is that people discuss it without really being able to define evolution. Thats pretty unique - there are very few that will say 'i dont believe in einsteins field equations because space is empty, and an empty thing cannot be bend, so this whole notion of warped space-time is wrong.'. I mean, to discuss something, and to throw out a scientific theory, you got to know what it actually say: what is the definition, what is the evidence. And trust me, with evolution there is a very very long list of evidence. If you are interested, i would recommend the following page to you:

  http://www.talkorigins.org/

  and

  http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html

  To take the argument with the clock - its completely bunk. Its in the watchtower litterature because they dont give a rats ass about teaching their members. To get some more constructive critisism, take a look on this site where a genetic algorithm is used to construct a clock:

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcAq9bmCeR0