Posts by snare&racket

135

Shark Evolution

by metatron in

jw
friends

http://descrier.co.uk/science/fossil-discovery-shows-model-evolution-sharks/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=fossil-discovery-shows-model-evolution-sharks.

i used to consider sharks to be evidence for creation - and against evolution because it was stated that they are largely unchanged after millions of years ( hence, 'what evolution?')..

that's not the case, however.

snare&racket

A fundametalist atheist....REALLY doesn't believe in god... and takes the words of apostle Sagan literally.

Kinda contradicts the bible that says everyone is not atheist, but believes.... lol.

7

Predicting the future like Isaac

by snare&racket in

jw
friends

the prophet from the stars, mr isaac asimov made some predictions for 2014, (please note the lack of ambigous monsters of several heads and horns)....he was very, very specific all the way back in 1964..... communications will become sight-sound and you will see as well as hear the person you telephone.

the screen can be used not only to see the people you call but also for studying documents and photographs and reading passages from books.

synchronous satellites hovering in space will make it possible for you to direct-dial any spot on earth.. by 2014, only unmanned ships will have landed on mars, though a manned expedition will be in the work.. gadgetry will continue to relieve mankind of tedious jobs.

snare&racket

References? It isn't science..... it's his opinion and he wrote it all in a 1964 New York times article.

A science fiction writer is better at predictions than any religions and holy texts I have ever come across. He didn't claim to be inspired though. I assume from your request of 'references' you are impressed and want to see evidence of the predictions.

Tis a good topic title isn't it!

snare x

30

what is the answer to the old question about the immovable object and the irresistible force?

by Hortensia in

i know isaac asimov's answer, which makes sense to me.

anyone else have any answer to the question about what happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object?.

snare&racket

my best guess....an infinite and non progressive meeting of forces i.e. no progress, a bit like pondering the question.

266

There Was No First Human

by cofty in

this excellent 4 minute video will help to clear up a few common misunderstandings regarding evolution.. ....

snare&racket

Apog, with respect, you are using wikipedia to look up the definition of species, yet you want to present a mechanism for defining all species.. may I humbly suggest a little humility. Is there not a teeny weeny bit of your mind saying maybe you are not fully aware of all the facts and variables?

This is how the experts do it... what exactly is at fault here?

7

Predicting the future like Isaac

by snare&racket in

jw
friends

the prophet from the stars, mr isaac asimov made some predictions for 2014, (please note the lack of ambigous monsters of several heads and horns)....he was very, very specific all the way back in 1964..... communications will become sight-sound and you will see as well as hear the person you telephone.

the screen can be used not only to see the people you call but also for studying documents and photographs and reading passages from books.

synchronous satellites hovering in space will make it possible for you to direct-dial any spot on earth.. by 2014, only unmanned ships will have landed on mars, though a manned expedition will be in the work.. gadgetry will continue to relieve mankind of tedious jobs.

snare&racket

The Prophet from the stars, Mr Isaac Asimov made some predictions for 2014, (please note the lack of ambigous monsters of several heads and horns)....he was very, very specific all the way back in 1964....

Communications will become sight-sound and you will see as well as hear the person you telephone. The screen can be used not only to see the people you call but also for studying documents and photographs and reading passages from books. Synchronous satellites hovering in space will make it possible for you to direct-dial any spot on Earth.

By 2014, only unmanned ships will have landed on Mars, though a manned expedition will be in the work.

Gadgetry will continue to relieve mankind of tedious jobs. Kitchen units will be devised that will prepare 'automeals', heating water..

Robots will neither be common nor very good in 2014, but they will be in existence.

Men will continue to withdraw from nature in order to create an environment that will suit them better. By 2014, electroluminescent panels will be in common use.

Wall screens will have replaced the ordinary television set; but transparent cubes will be making their appearance in which three-dimensional viewing will be possible.

The world of AD 2014 will have few routine jobs that cannot be done better by some machine than by any human being. Mankind will therefore have become largely a race of machine tenders.

All the high-school students will be taught the fundamentals of computer technology.

Although technology will still keep up with population through 2014, it will be only through a supreme effort and with but partial success. Not all the world's population will enjoy the gadgetry world of the future to the full. A larger portion than today will be deprived and although they may be better off, materially, than today, they will be further behind when compared with the advanced portions of the world. They will have moved backward, relatively

266

There Was No First Human

by cofty in

this excellent 4 minute video will help to clear up a few common misunderstandings regarding evolution.. ....

snare&racket

DJS... just finished a revision session and like to come here to switch off a little. I have my last exam on Wednesday, a nice feeling :D

It helps that I don't need to pass it as I am already done, so coming here is no biggie right now.It helps me wind down and stops my brain firing at 100 mph, so I can nod off.....

266

There Was No First Human

by cofty in

this excellent 4 minute video will help to clear up a few common misunderstandings regarding evolution.. ....

snare&racket

atrapado, there is no perfect definition or gold standard for species of any kind. Thinking there is means you have not grasped the influences and end result of natural selection.

If the species is alive at a point in time...it has evolved successfully to its enviroment at that point in time... so by definitio is ideal for its enviroment at that point in time. That is as near to defining what a species should be as you can get. It is measured by nothing more than it being appropristely adapted to its environment.

Let me give a quick example. Let's say you want to claim that humans today are what a human should be, so we use a bell shaped curve to look at what the average human statistics are. Ok so if we did that and focused on one thing in paticular as an example. we would say that humans have round red blood cells (concave to be accurate). Because by far, most do.

With that in mind, here is an example of why that doesn't work. Red blood cells can by mutation, become sickle shaped, it leads to reduced life span and complications, but many people can and do have it and importantly survive beyond procreation ages. So it can be passe on. Sickle cellshaped red blood cells by chance offer a protrction against malaria as the pathogen can't attach to the cell when it is this shape.

Ok so humans right now, by enlarge have round red blood cells. If we change our environment, say the world gets warmer, more mosquitos and we throw in an epidemic of malaria. The population that will survive and do well and procreate more are the people with genes for sickle shaped red blood cells. Fast forward 150 years and take the bell shaped curve assesment AGAIN to assess what an average human is once more, and now a human has statiistically asickle shsped red blood cell, perfect for its enviroment.

So do you see that there is no gold standard for any species?

It is the enviroment that defines what is appropriate at that point in time, nothing more. Natural selection, specifically nature...dictates how best we should be at that time. But then that alone can't be used as a guide for all humans because the enviroment on earth alters hugely. Fror example in Africa, in regions of high malaria rates.... sickle cell humans are surving better! In the UK it exists largely due to migration, here it offers no advantage and causes lots of issues for these poor patients.

IT IS ALL ABOUT THE ENVIROMENT ;)

266

There Was No First Human

by cofty in

this excellent 4 minute video will help to clear up a few common misunderstandings regarding evolution.. ....

snare&racket

Maybe my worst ever post...

"just human, half of scientists are religious.... Anyone can become a scoentist, you just need evidence. You can cahsnge the world justhuman, go prove them wrong....Thats hoe science works..."

Apologies, I have typo disease. Just wanted to say great thread by Cofty and Viviane. Atrapado, these guys are sharing information that took them years to obtain and much effort. With respect, you are getting a free crash course into evolution, ask yourself what motive Cofty has to come here and promote evidence and reasoning? It isn't to alienate, that is contradictory.

I think that sometimes there is a clash between minds. Science is based on evidence and attack of science is usually based on ignorance. At best it is a based on better evidence, obtained scientifically.

When people attack a scientific, evidence based theory.....it is quite frustrating to watch, all you can do is refer them to sources and tell them the latest thinking. This is often interpreted as rude or as elitist, but in reality there is no easy way of saying 'you need to read and know more'.

As JW's we were given a cuddle and smile as we were fed the WT dogma. Science has no agenda, just facts. There is no nice way to sell it and I am glad of that. Most people dont like the idea of evolution or the big bang, it is less conforting than to have been hand moulded by s loving father figure, but we deal with evidence not comfort. Science is underestimated for the effort required to understsnd it too. It is very complex, even the evolution and science being discussed here is high school level, easily below age 14 science class room level. I didn't know it until I was 27 and it took much effort because I was vaccinated against evidence as a JW kid! But I can assure you, these are the ABC's of evolution and as you can appreciate it is complex stuff. Genesis 1:1 takes ten seconds to read and understand..... hence it was written. Evolution, genetics, biodiversity, bio-chemistry, geology and palaeontology are all required at a basic level to understand the basics of evolution.

Now imagine someone who can't even define evolution, questioning it. If someone really wants answers. The only question should be... how can I learn this theory? THEN question it all you like!

(But been as 97% of scientists don't question evolution it is unlikely you will....not because you are not able, but due to the undenisble evidence. By the way, a pew study in 2009 indicated that the 3% that rejected it were religous and there was a direct correlation to denying evolution and belief and weekly church attendance. Still that is not important, it is all about the evidence.)

It is like trying to convince someone that thearth is round, it is hard to say you are wromg without implying 'thats ridiculous', especially when they argue and argue.

So please take all this into considerstion, simply put,,there is no easy way to tell someone they are wrong and need to read more.... but by our actions, namely being here helping people to learn basic science, pointing them to resources such ss cofty's video, should say much about our motives.

219

An important difference between atheists and true believers

by Hortensia in

true believers, whether christian, muslim or whatever, want to convert you, they want you to believe what they do, and they're willing to go to extremes to make it happen.

atheists don't really care what you believe, and don't go out of their way to convert someone.. http://ow.ly/vn1jz an example of what believers in power do to suppress any difference in thought.

http://ow.ly/vraeo an example of why believers want to suppress different ideas (because they can't win in a fair fight, that's why).

snare&racket

Apog....

Atheism is nothing more than rejection of one more god than you, because just as with the others there is no evidence to suggest he exists. Atheism says nothing about how a person feels about science, nature or santa claus !

No really! See if you can spot any reference to science, or a word I have never heard before 'scientism'? in this definition of atheism that I recognise...

(by the way who on earth rejects science?!)

Atheism is the absence of belief in any Gods or spiritual beings. The word Atheism comes froma, meaning without, and theism meaning belief in god or gods.

Atheists don't use God to explain the existence of the universe.
Atheists say that human beings can devise suitable moral codes to live by without the aid of Gods or scriptures.

Reasons for non-belief

People are atheist for many reasons, among them:

They find insufficient evidence to support any religion.
They think that religion is nonsensical.
They once had a religion and have lost faith in it.
They live in a non-religious culture.
Religion doesn't interest them.
Religion doesn't seem relevant to their lives.
Religions seem to have done a lot of harm in the world.
The world is such a bad place that there can't be a God.

Many atheists are also secularist, and are hostile to any special treatment given to organised religion.

It is possible to be both atheist and religious. Virtually allBuddhists manage it, as do some adherents of other religions,such as Judaism and Christianity.

Atheists and morality

Atheists are as moral (or immoral) as religious people.

In practical terms atheists often follow the same moral code as religious people, but they arrive at the decision of what is good or bad without any help from the idea of God.

What does it mean to be human?

Atheists find their own answers to the question of what it means to be human. This discussion looks at the question from both theological and ethical viewpoints.

See no reference to science at all... JUST AS I would never judge a believers assessment of science because they may be a believer!

52

How evil are lawyers?

by LogCon in

give me some examples of just how evil attorneys are.. please..

snare&racket

weird.....