Posts by kepler

Broadcast on BBC News Service to America: Heart & Soul, Witness Protection

by kepler in

sorry about the delay on this, but about a week ago (sunday night?

) at 11:30 central daylight savings time in the us, the bbc news service broadcast provided an in-depth discussion of witness policy, law-suits and criminal proceedings in matters of child abuse, logs of incidents not shared with local authorities and disfellowships.

it was practically the sort of story that many correspondents on this forum have waited years to hear.

kepler

Sorry about the delay on this, but about a week ago (Sunday night?) at 11:30 central daylight savings time in the US, the BBC news service broadcast provided an in-depth discussion of Witness policy, law-suits and criminal proceedings in matters of child abuse, logs of incidents not shared with local authorities and disfellowships. It was practically the sort of story that many correspondents on this forum have waited years to hear.

www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p056p7wg

The above is a direct link to the website in which a podcast of the broadcast is available. Heart and Soul is a series

of BBC broadcasts on religious matters world wide.

I am surprised that I didn't see anyone else post on this topic. I was delayed because I was logged off and had some

difficulty locating my password.

32

You may not have read the Apologist version of 607 b.c.e.

by Terry in

jerusalem 607 bce vindicatedapostates and other opposers argue that jerusalem was not destroyed in 607 bce, but in 587 bce, and provide what they claim is archaeological evidence to support this.

read this chapter.... 5: servitude to the king of babylon for 70 years?.

read this chapter.... 9: the 70 years for tyre.

kepler

A number of non-JW analysts, Christian and Jewish, connect the 70 year interval with the 586 destruction to the breaking ground(circa 516 BC) for the 2nd Temple.

It is interesting that Jeremiah's words sound a great deal like Isaiah's in the early chapters.

As for Daniel: "Darius, son of Xerxes ( a Mede by descent)" must have read his Greek historians - after the Persian and Peloponnesian Wars. Both Herodotus and Thucydides called Persians "Medes" in Greek, if not in English translations. Now check when Xerxes reigned and who attempted to bring such desolation to Athens in the 5th century BC. Then if this Darius is the son of Xerxes, then he reigned at least a century after Cyrus: 423 to 405 BC.

32

You may not have read the Apologist version of 607 b.c.e.

by Terry in

jerusalem 607 bce vindicatedapostates and other opposers argue that jerusalem was not destroyed in 607 bce, but in 587 bce, and provide what they claim is archaeological evidence to support this.

read this chapter.... 5: servitude to the king of babylon for 70 years?.

read this chapter.... 9: the 70 years for tyre.

kepler

Right, "Gentile times".

The term is used by English translators for the Hebrew גוי‎ (goy) and נכרי‎ (nokhri) in the Hebrew Bible and the Greek word ἔθνη (éthnē) in the New Testament. The term "gentiles" is derived from Latin, used for contextual translation, and not an original Hebrew or Greek word from the Bible.

If the Bible is inerrant, then its translators inferences from it stand on feet of clay.

Furthermore, seventy years was applied to a desolation even earlier: Sennacherib to the devastation he wrought on Babylon. Esarhaddon reversed it on a subsequent cuneiform post. In other words, the concept is borrowed from Assyrians.

46

THIS MAN proved that God exists and he did it effortlessly!

by Terry in

meet a really smart fellow named anselm 1043--1109 a.d.. .

he was elected abbot in lombardy in 1078 a.d.. .

that than which nothing greater can be thought exists in the understanding.

kepler

If there is no higher consciousness in this universe than our own, then how is it that ours so spontaneously came into existence?

It didn't. Consciousness is the product of brains. And brains are the product of billions of years of evolution. There's nothing "spontaneous" about it.

Perhaps an argument could be made that God intervened in the evolutionary process and bestowed consciousness on man?

But why would we resort to supernatural explanations at all? It's ok that there are things we still don't know. Maybe it will be solved in our lifetime; maybe not. There is a lot that is known about the brain that was mysterious just a few decades ago.

Every mystery ever solved so far has turned not to be magic.

-----------------------------

With regard to the above:

It's not that I have never invoked physical and natural explanations for phenomena encountered - or have never defended them. I've done so on occasion on this forum. But I think (sic) that our thought processes and awareness of them pose problems for natural science that have never been fully resolved - and they have been lurking for at least the time that Descartes first submitted his proposition.

Descartes evidently is no longer with his, but he once existed ( Cogito, ergo sum ... ergo erat), But since he ceased and all manner of mass, energy, moment and other measures in this universe are conserved, where did he go? Where did he come from when he came into this world. Is there a supply of that essence from which he came? Is it unique to us on this earth - or do we share it with cats and dogs? Does it exist elsewhere in this cosmic domain?

Newtonian physics is description of the interaction of two or more masses, but it does NOT explain how there can be interaction at a distance. Genetics and evolution, sad to say, do not explain this either. General relativity takes Newtonian physics to the next level, but it has its rough edges too in unification....

But I am starting to digress. The device I write this reply on has many so-called intelligent features, but it is not sentient in the same manner as you or I. Passing a Turing test does not assure sentience or awareness - only that the coder of the algorithm is clever enough to fool someone in conversation on a telephone line.

You can observe this essence in many ways. Clip your nails and you are not at loss. Yes, it resides in the head and brain in some fashion - just as a CPU resides in my laptop, but there is something more to it than simply code. Roger Penrose, I suspect, in "The Emperor's New Mind" seems to suggest that we will find some exotic particle in physics to explain our phenomenon, but I doubt it.

The simplest Occam's razor style answer I can think of is that there is something about consciousness that points to more than simply our own. If eukaryotic cells are a stretch from prokaryotic, then consciousness is orders of magnitude more. Unless there was a head start somewhere.

46

THIS MAN proved that God exists and he did it effortlessly!

by Terry in

meet a really smart fellow named anselm 1043--1109 a.d.. .

he was elected abbot in lombardy in 1078 a.d.. .

that than which nothing greater can be thought exists in the understanding.

kepler

If there is no higher consciousness in this universe than our own, then how is it that ours so spontaneously came into existence? It's an inference I don't see a trail toward in, say, particle physics, kinematics or entropy. Complicated structures occurring in certain circumstances. But why consciousness? Where does that come from in a system where everything is either conserved or transformed - unless there is a reservoir of it in creation?

205

Mathematically Measuring Evolution.

by towerwatchman in

mathematically measuring evolution.. when judging relationships in terms of morphological characteristics we will always be bound by the subjective.

morphologically one cannot exactly measure the distance between two organisms strictly in mathematical terms.

using the standard method of taxonomy we cannot quantify the difference between a horse and a mouse, or know which is closer mouse to cat, or mouse to fish.

kepler

towerwatchman 8 days ago

Mathematically Measuring Evolution.

When judging relationships in terms of morphological characteristics we will always be bound by the subjective. Morphologically one cannot exactly measure the distance between two organisms strictly in mathematical terms. Using the standard method of taxonomy we cannot quantify the difference between a horse and a mouse, or know which is closer mouse to cat, or mouse to fish. We cannot do this by just looking at the physical features of the creatures. A human may ‘look’ more complex than a frog but how much more in quantitative terms cannot be determined by morphology.

Biochemical level.

On the biochemical level the difference between two proteins can be quantified exactly and the results can be used to measure similarity or difference between species. What is needed is a common thread that runs through living things.

Cytochrome c is a small hemeprotein found loosely associated with the inner membrane of the mitochondrion. Cytochrome c is a highly water soluble protein, and is an essential component of the electron transport chain. Has a fundamental role in biological oxidation. Note found in a wide range of organisms from bacterial to mammals. It is about 100 amino acids long, has the same 3D configuration and possess an identical active site. What does vary between different organisms is the amino acid sequences. In Dayhoff’s Atlas of Protein Structure and Function there is a matrix with nearly 1089 entries showing the percentage sequence difference between thirty three different cytochromes taken from multiple species.

--------------------

Back to this opening proposition again. I think you can turn this quite around.
If you look at a scrapbook of pictures you can make decisions based on morphology whether a face or form of an animal represents more closely a dog or a cat. Yet even in what we regard as a species there is genetic diversity. The exceptions are species on the verge of extinction. In each instance, the question is begged: What IS a species?

Now, what about the Galapego Islands?

205

Mathematically Measuring Evolution.

by towerwatchman in

mathematically measuring evolution.. when judging relationships in terms of morphological characteristics we will always be bound by the subjective.

morphologically one cannot exactly measure the distance between two organisms strictly in mathematical terms.

using the standard method of taxonomy we cannot quantify the difference between a horse and a mouse, or know which is closer mouse to cat, or mouse to fish.

kepler

Hmmmm....

Got in on this late, but I note that it started like this:

towerwatchman 8 days ago

Mathematically Measuring Evolution.

When judging relationships in terms of morphological characteristics we will always be bound by the subjective. Morphologically one cannot exactly measure the distance between two organisms strictly in mathematical terms. Using the standard method of taxonomy we cannot quantify the difference between a horse and a mouse, or know which is closer mouse to cat, or mouse to fish. We cannot do this by just looking at the physical features of the creatures. A human may ‘look’ more complex than a frog but how much more in quantitative terms cannot be determined by morphology.

Biochemical level.

On the biochemical level the difference between two proteins can be quantified exactly and the results can be used to measure similarity or difference between species. What is needed is a common thread that runs through living things.

Cytochrome c is a small hemeprotein found loosely associated with the inner membrane of the mitochondrion. Cytochrome c is a highly water soluble protein, and is an essential component of the electron transport chain. Has a fundamental role in biological oxidation. Note found in a wide range of organisms from bacterial to mammals. It is about 100 amino acids long, has the same 3D configuration and possess an identical active site. What does vary between different organisms is the amino acid sequences. In Dayhoff’s Atlas of Protein Structure and Function there is a matrix with nearly 1089 entries showing the percentage sequence difference between thirty three different cytochromes taken from multiple species.

--------------------

There is simply an assertion that morphological measurements cannot be measured in a manner that tells the analyst anything. So, to remedy that, we are told to look at cytochrome c -which seems to have a scattered distribution, judging from what one would conclude from classifications of fauna even preceding evolutionary theory, e.g., developed by Carolus Linneaus. So we've got two straw men constructed and we are to presume that they knock the legs off evolutionary theory. No one is allowed a chance to address the assertion about morphological analyses and no one was asked to vote on the motion for using cytochrome c.

What about the genetic code itself?

What about the vanishing of species and new varieties appearing?

For something that was once described as natural philosophy, how does invoking a supernatural mechanism at every turn improve understanding of nature?

At best within the framework of a physical world experimental analysis can provide rules for natural behavior which we tend to categorize as laws or mechanisms. Yes, you might want to revise evolutionary theory, just as you would want to revise meteorology. But you would not want to substitute wind demons at the four corners of the Earth for fluid mechanics and thermodynamics.

21

TIL - 537 BC is in the Bible - and more

by berrygerry in

from an apologist site:.

http://thirdwitness.com/607_bce/www.jehovahsjudgment.co.uk/607/realissue.html.

hence, counting back from 537 bce (the year the bible says the jews returned home) for a full seventy years, we arrive at the year 607 bce.. .

kepler

Ever notice when the construction of the 2nd Temple in Jerusalem was supposedly kicked off?

Here's an on-line description:

"The Second Temple was an important Jewish Holy Temple (Hebrew: בֵּית־הַמִּקְדָּשׁ הַשֵּׁנִי‎‎, Beit HaMikdash HaSheni) which stood on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem during the Second Temple period, between 516 BCE and 70 CE. According to Judeo-Christian tradition, it replaced Solomon's Temple (the First Temple), which was destroyed by the Neo-Babylonian Empire in 586 BCE, when Jerusalem was conquered and a portion of the population of the Kingdom of Judah was taken into exile in Babylon."

Now, are you looking for 70 years?

Actually, it was Sennecharib that condemned Babylon to a 70 year desolation. And then Esarhaddon came up with a clever way to rescind it. So 70 years had been kind of a middle eastern standard when authorities were severely provoked.

But let's see. What was 70 years before 516 BC?... Did I mention the date?

496

This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

by cofty in

sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.

various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.

i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.

kepler

Admittedly, missed more than 400 entries between 1st and current page. However:

It would seem that "evolution is, ergo atheism reigns" arguments rely greatly on physical law or biological observation. Mechanistic in the same sense as Marxism. That's meant to illustrate, not to take offense at.

But what appears absent, unless I missed something in the middle which was uncharacteristic, is consideration of the Descartes proposition: "I think, therefore I am" (cogito, ergo sum).

Why is it possible for us to think and have conscientiousness? Has that aspect of existence been revealed to us by natural science or physical law? I know or assume I have it,and I suspect that most of us in this discussion link think similarly - including Cofty. Maybe evolutionary theorists don't mind this one, but it bothers cyberneticists, cosmologists, neurologists, physicists and others. Ever run across the book "The Emperor's New Mind" by Roger Penrose. He's not a evolutionary biologist (nor an evangelist) but he does have a physical science credential or two.

Artificial intelligence of the Turing type does not necessarily mean you have conscientiousness. It means you have someone on the other end of a phone call fooled about whom they are talking to. No one. Now maybe Penrose thinks this dilemma can be solved by discovering another exotic particle such as a Higgs boson, but I doubt it. There's something odd about us and many of our animal friends. If I look at the world through the window of my senses, I suspect that you do too and so do many of our counterparts.

Where did that come from?

And given that, is human kind the apex of such evolutionary counter enthropic flowdown?

Could there be other examples elsewhere?

Could it flow down from a higher source?

Can something out there even beyond time and space have a similar sense of conscientiousness but orders of magnitude higher, one that permeates creation and beyond it?

That we exist at all suggests a greater purpose. If there isn't any readily apparent, then perhaps it is part of the plan to make it so via our minds and hearts.

7

MOVIE REVIEW; SILENCE (A story about Faith, Martyrs, Apostates, and Stupidity)

by TerryWalstrom in

jw
friends

silence (movie review)_________.

unless you are a catholic, ex-catholic, an evangelical christian, or a total apostate to your former religion or church--this film is not for you!_____.

martin scorsese has wrought a filmwhich no 2 eyes will see in the same way.. on the surface, it is about the clash (the push back against christianity and priests by buddhists and officials particularly in nagasaki) resulting from catholic evangelism inside japan.

kepler

Another observation which I didn't have time to include.

Adrian Goldsworthy, a historian of the Roman Empire wrote "How Rome Fell" recently. His tone and focus are a bit different than say Gibbons or Michael Grant. I got to the point where he mentions some of the early Christian persecutions just a night or two ago. I believe it was Decius following up on Pliny's reports of the 2nd century ...

Anyway, there were remarkable similarities to the approach of the Japanese, but the enforcement was only sporadic. There were symbolic acts of apostacy in public places and targets were offered two or three chances before the shoe was dropped.

Goldsworthy suggested that the Romans saw Christians as a public morale problem in the face of other threats to the Empire ( Eastern enemies, barbarian incursions, plague...). Similar to the Japanese in the film but not with the decade after decade resolve in every prefecture. Not everyone was on the same page as can be inferred by Constantine's position. Evidently he saw more evidence for a Roman civic mindset in 4th century Christians than in the mindset of the Roman Empire's urban masses. Plus they were literate, writing reams ( or the goatskin equivalent) of apologies, histories and debates among themselves. It's hard to get in the mind of the Japanese rulers at the time, save that they didn't like anything that was coming ashore from tthe outside world.