summary.
the subject of the `wagatha christie" trial investigates the inner workings of the jehovah's witnesses.
having grown up within the faith, she explains how the religion failed to support her through sexual abuse and shunned her as a child.
One of the ex-JWs who will be interviewed in the programme is Ali Millar author the the outstanding book - The Last Days: A memoir of faith, desire and freedom.
Ali is a very talented author who is already in the process of finishing her second book - this time a novel. If you haven't read The Last Days yet do yourself a favour and order a copy.
scholar and fisherman, i started this thread because i didn't want to highjack the one in regard to 588/568.. i just wanted to ask if you were both current active jw's that believe the jw's beliefs?.
do y'all believe the gb are the f&ds?
if the answers are no, then why do y'all defend so passionately the date 607?
Oh look the pigeon knocks over the king, craps on the chess board and claims victory. Another win for the apologists.
geoffrey hinton, major inventor of artificial intelligence: .
“if you take the existential risk seriously, as i now do—i used to think it was way off, but now i think it’s serious, and fairly close—it might be quite sensible to just stop developing these things any further, but i think it’s completely naïve to think that would happen.
there’s no way to make that happen.
Sam Harris is the gloomiest person in the world. He was practically hysterical about Covid, and has still not revised his views on that topic - rather like somebody else around here.
Haven't you had enough of apocalyptic thinking?
geoffrey hinton, major inventor of artificial intelligence: .
“if you take the existential risk seriously, as i now do—i used to think it was way off, but now i think it’s serious, and fairly close—it might be quite sensible to just stop developing these things any further, but i think it’s completely naïve to think that would happen.
there’s no way to make that happen.
I've read Pinker's books and I disagree with the idea that he is complacent. On the contrary he insists that there is absolutely no reason to assume that the gains of the past will not be lost unless we are vigilant.
He is the perfect antidote to the JW (and SBF) - doom and gloom - mentality.
most creationist arguments can be summarised as "complexity, complexity, complexity - therefore god".
we have all heard the illustrations about the odds of (insert favourite example) evolving, being less than 10,000 monkeys typing macbeth by pure chance.
evolution is not like that.
In all these conversations about evolution it's worth bearing in mind that the vast majority of theists have no problems with it.
It's only a relatively small minority of fundamentalists - and most Muslims - who refuse to accept reality.
It's is a common issue for ex-JWs due to years of indoctrination and woeful science education.
most creationist arguments can be summarised as "complexity, complexity, complexity - therefore god".
we have all heard the illustrations about the odds of (insert favourite example) evolving, being less than 10,000 monkeys typing macbeth by pure chance.
evolution is not like that.
most creationist arguments can be summarised as "complexity, complexity, complexity - therefore god".
we have all heard the illustrations about the odds of (insert favourite example) evolving, being less than 10,000 monkeys typing macbeth by pure chance.
evolution is not like that.
That's interesting stuff thanks DJW
geoffrey hinton, major inventor of artificial intelligence: .
“if you take the existential risk seriously, as i now do—i used to think it was way off, but now i think it’s serious, and fairly close—it might be quite sensible to just stop developing these things any further, but i think it’s completely naïve to think that would happen.
there’s no way to make that happen.
Can't we just pull out the plug?
most creationist arguments can be summarised as "complexity, complexity, complexity - therefore god".
we have all heard the illustrations about the odds of (insert favourite example) evolving, being less than 10,000 monkeys typing macbeth by pure chance.
evolution is not like that.
the theory of evolution is that it cannot explain how the mechanism of evolution evolved
On the contrary that is specifically the very thing that Darwin did explain correctly.
Evolution is nothing more than differences in the frequency of alleles in a gene pool.
Like drawing a random straight flush thousands or billions of times in a row
The OP of this thread illustrates why your commonly held opinion is entirely mistaken. It's absolutely NOTHING like that.
most creationist arguments can be summarised as "complexity, complexity, complexity - therefore god".
we have all heard the illustrations about the odds of (insert favourite example) evolving, being less than 10,000 monkeys typing macbeth by pure chance.
evolution is not like that.
DJW - The detailed understanding of the specific genetic mutations that tweek light sensitivity is really amazing. It's a brilliant example of science at its best.
I don't know the answer to your question about human differences. It's entirely possible. The thing to keep in mind is that mutations are random but selection is not. In the case of birds an ability to see particular colours has a selective advantage so it tends to survive into future generations. A human who has a similar mutation is no more likely to prosper or have more offspring than one who doesn't, So this mutation might disappear just as quickly or continue for a few generations.
