Mr Ben

Joined

• started 28 topics
• posted 343 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by Mr Ben

• 
  15

  Evolutionary questions.

  by sleepy in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  is the model we have of evolution water tight?.

  i have no problem with evolutionary theory ,it describes how we see nature working today , and assumes this carries back down into the distant past , without much interference, but a few things niggle me.. lets take for example the evolution of speech.. it has been said that evolution of speech must have taken a very long time and was very gradual.. a little advance at a time.

  first a grunt ,then a cry until we have the oxford dictionary on english words.. so obviously by the time people could talk fluidly like today, they were very different to non-talking creatures to such an extent they we didnt know we they came from them.. but how do we know this ,as speech can leave no evidence?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Mr Ben

  carmel
  

  If humans, which are one of the very youngest of the panoply of species, developed speach, why didn't older species that have been around for eons?

  When you say "humans", do you mean Homo sapiens? What about Neanderthals? Whilst they were human, most theists exclude them as they are a different species of human to Adam & Jesus, as well being before Adam, so why did they die? Anyway, it is proved that they used art – which requires abstract thought. Art and language are sufficiently similar to theorise that they did indeed speak.

  Why only humans? It really gets down to evolution likely being a mechanism for creative expression with a purposeful "creator".

  Well, we can’t be sure about that, can we? And if we are going to move from fact to assertion, then I could say that squid use a complex language system, but they use colour as the symbol instead of hand-written script, and, well heck, they don’t have hands! What about parrots? No, seriously, parrots can learn English. But we don’t understand parrot yet. What about aliens, or even angels for that matter?

  Even if the first assertion is correct, that it is only humans, the second assertion does not automatically follow. There is nothing wrong believing that if you want to, so long as you realise that it is a belief that does not follow from the first assertion.

  Religion n.
  An organisation designed to promote atheism.
• 
  10

  Help! with forum abbreviations please

  by Mr Ben in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i need help understanding all these forum abbreviations!

  things like:.

  lmao, rolfmao, etc.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Mr Ben

  Ah, I have to run now, but please continue to add to my little glossary. Thanks all.

  Religion n.
  An organisation designed to promote atheism.
• 
  10

  Help! with forum abbreviations please

  by Mr Ben in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i need help understanding all these forum abbreviations!

  things like:.

  lmao, rolfmao, etc.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Mr Ben

  Angharad,

  Yes, yes, yes???? (Eagerly anticipating...)

  Religion n.
  An organisation designed to promote atheism.
• 
  10

  Help! with forum abbreviations please

  by Mr Ben in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i need help understanding all these forum abbreviations!

  things like:.

  lmao, rolfmao, etc.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Mr Ben

  Help! I need help understanding all these forum abbreviations! Things like:

  LMAO, ROLFMAO, ETC

  Would you kindly reply with one or two abbreviations that you are familiar with and their meaning.

  TIA (Thanks In Advance!)

  Religion n.
  An organisation designed to promote atheism.
• 
  15

  Evolutionary questions.

  by sleepy in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  is the model we have of evolution water tight?.

  i have no problem with evolutionary theory ,it describes how we see nature working today , and assumes this carries back down into the distant past , without much interference, but a few things niggle me.. lets take for example the evolution of speech.. it has been said that evolution of speech must have taken a very long time and was very gradual.. a little advance at a time.

  first a grunt ,then a cry until we have the oxford dictionary on english words.. so obviously by the time people could talk fluidly like today, they were very different to non-talking creatures to such an extent they we didnt know we they came from them.. but how do we know this ,as speech can leave no evidence?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Mr Ben

  Sleepy,

  I heartily agree. If we ever arrive at something we believe is the final “truth,” then we will have no reason to keep questioning.

  Long live doubt! (For I doubt we’d live long without it.)

  Religion n.
  An organisation designed to promote atheism.
• 
  15

  Evolutionary questions.

  by sleepy in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  is the model we have of evolution water tight?.

  i have no problem with evolutionary theory ,it describes how we see nature working today , and assumes this carries back down into the distant past , without much interference, but a few things niggle me.. lets take for example the evolution of speech.. it has been said that evolution of speech must have taken a very long time and was very gradual.. a little advance at a time.

  first a grunt ,then a cry until we have the oxford dictionary on english words.. so obviously by the time people could talk fluidly like today, they were very different to non-talking creatures to such an extent they we didnt know we they came from them.. but how do we know this ,as speech can leave no evidence?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Mr Ben

  Sleepy,

  You are guaranteed to be disappointed if you search for scientific “truth.” There is no such thing. There is only theory. If we had thought that Newtonian physics was “truth,” why search for an alternative? Admittedly, some theories are so well established that that we no longer call them theories in everyday speech, such as the Heliocentric Theory. There are a lot of facts (evidence) to support that theory, but it will never become “truth.” It just sits and waits, and if no better theory replaces it then it remains, sitting and waiting on the theory shelf, but never quite making it to the truth shelf.

  Don’t search for “truth” in science, for there isn’t such a thing, and you will only be disappointed. There are facts, and these fact do or do not fit theories. That’s as good as it gets I’m afraid. But it is a very good system which has uncovered amazing things about ourselves and our universe.

  Religion n.
  An organisation designed to promote atheism.
• 
  15

  Evolutionary questions.

  by sleepy in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  is the model we have of evolution water tight?.

  i have no problem with evolutionary theory ,it describes how we see nature working today , and assumes this carries back down into the distant past , without much interference, but a few things niggle me.. lets take for example the evolution of speech.. it has been said that evolution of speech must have taken a very long time and was very gradual.. a little advance at a time.

  first a grunt ,then a cry until we have the oxford dictionary on english words.. so obviously by the time people could talk fluidly like today, they were very different to non-talking creatures to such an extent they we didnt know we they came from them.. but how do we know this ,as speech can leave no evidence?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Mr Ben

  Sleepy,

  Is the model we have of evolution water tight?

  You mean, “models.” No. But then you are expecting too much. For example, the Newtonian gravitational model was proved wrong by Einstein, but NASA still sent a rocket to the Moon using Newtonian “laws” of motion. In other words, Newton’s model was not water tight, but it gave us a damn good view of the universe that wasn’t far off “water tight” – even if such a concept were even valid.

  Does scientific theory have to be water tight to be useful? Clearly, no.

  Religion n.
  An organisation designed to promote atheism.
• 
  15

  Evolutionary questions.

  by sleepy in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  is the model we have of evolution water tight?.

  i have no problem with evolutionary theory ,it describes how we see nature working today , and assumes this carries back down into the distant past , without much interference, but a few things niggle me.. lets take for example the evolution of speech.. it has been said that evolution of speech must have taken a very long time and was very gradual.. a little advance at a time.

  first a grunt ,then a cry until we have the oxford dictionary on english words.. so obviously by the time people could talk fluidly like today, they were very different to non-talking creatures to such an extent they we didnt know we they came from them.. but how do we know this ,as speech can leave no evidence?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Mr Ben

  Sleepy,

  But how do we know this ,as speech can leave no evidence?

  True, but the concept of using a symbol to signify a thing or an idea does not relate to just speech. For example, the symbolic sound, “God”, obviously refers to a deity, but also the carved figurine of a deity does the same thing. Both are symbols. This is abstract thought in action.

  Whilst it is difficult to prove if our ancestors spoke, were any ancient hominids capable of abstraction & symbolism or art? Yes. Finds include cave paintings and carvings of female images – even amongst Neanderthal artefacts. Now, whilst they are not our ancestors, it still serves the point that there is a way that traces of abstract thought can be left for posterity.

  Religion n.
  An organisation designed to promote atheism.
• 
  55

  I've been shunned from my sister's wedding

  by Quotes in

  1. jw
  2. experiences

  the following is the contents of a hand-written letter i just received from my (21 year old) sister, who is getting married may 18. for some reason, i thought that she would let love and compassion be stronger than wt programming.

  but i was wrong.

  yeah, it sucks.. *** my question for the board ***.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Mr Ben

  Quotes,

  I would tell her that as it isher special day, you want whatever she wants because you love her and want to do what makes her happy, and damn what anyone else thinks.

  I believe this would accomplish 3 things:

  - In your own conscience, you have done whatever she wanted, as you love her.

  - In her mind you are the only person putting what she wants first – after all it is her big day.

  - In her mind, you saying that you will do what she wants, you put the responsibility for asking you not to go on her shoulder – therefore she will not so easily be able to salve her conscience by saying to herself, “the elders/parents/Jehovah thought it was best.,” i.e. it wasn’t really her decision.

  Ben

  Religion n.
  An organisation designed to promote atheism.
• 
  55

  I've been shunned from my sister's wedding

  by Quotes in

  1. jw
  2. experiences

  the following is the contents of a hand-written letter i just received from my (21 year old) sister, who is getting married may 18. for some reason, i thought that she would let love and compassion be stronger than wt programming.

  but i was wrong.

  yeah, it sucks.. *** my question for the board ***.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Mr Ben

  In my opinion...

  Send her a letter telling her that you love her, and that you will do whatever she wishes and that you promise to see her soon.

  Add that you wonder what she will say to anyone who tells her that the JW's don't split up families.

  If she wasn't born in the cult ask her if - when she was studying - if she had been told by the study conductor that being a JW would include banning her own family from her wedding, how would she have felt? Would she have still joined? If not why not? I.e. get to think in her pre-cult personality.

  Best wishes,
  Mr Ben

  Religion n.
  An organisation designed to promote atheism.