shepherdless

Joined

• started 16 topics
• posted 914 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by shepherdless

• 
  36

  Estimating future growth or decline of Watchtower

  by shepherdless in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i have seen a few posts here, in various guises, in relation to whether watchtower is in decline.

  plenty of people respond, but it is all fairly anecdotal, or "gut feel".

  some of it has been wishful thinking.. as of late 2015, watchtower's numbers suggest it is still growing marginally, but there are various anecdotes on this site of publishers typically being older, and younger ones disappearing.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  shepherdless

  Hi nigget and wannaexit.

  When I made my original post, some paragraphs mysteriously disappeared. I have reinserted them.
• 
  36

  Estimating future growth or decline of Watchtower

  by shepherdless in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i have seen a few posts here, in various guises, in relation to whether watchtower is in decline.

  plenty of people respond, but it is all fairly anecdotal, or "gut feel".

  some of it has been wishful thinking.. as of late 2015, watchtower's numbers suggest it is still growing marginally, but there are various anecdotes on this site of publishers typically being older, and younger ones disappearing.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  shepherdless

  I have seen a few posts here, in various guises, in relation to whether Watchtower is in decline. Plenty of people respond, but it is all fairly anecdotal, or "gut feel". Some of it has been wishful thinking.

  As of late 2015, Watchtower's numbers suggest it is still growing marginally, but there are various anecdotes on this site of publishers typically being older, and younger ones disappearing. Personally, I suspect there will never be a mass exodus, and that if Watchtower is to decline, it will be over a period of decades at least.

  I think one of the most important indicators of future growth or decline, is the median age of the Witnesses. (By the way; "median age" does not mean the same thing as "average age". I am not going to explain the difference, here.)

  Why is median age relevant?

  
  

  • Virtually every country on the planet that has a median age of over 40 is experiencing zero or negative population growth. (In fact most countries experiencing significant population growth have median ages of 30 or less.)

  
  

  • The effect of an increase in median age is not immediate. It plays out over decades.

  • The effect has been masked by increases in life expectancy in most countries.

  
  

  • Given that Watchtower struggles to gain recruits in the internet age, and is now heavily reliant on "born-ins" for future growth, I suspect the same applies to Watchtower.

  
  Predicting growth from median age is a complicated topic, and the relevant median age that leads to a population decline depends on a number of factors and differs from region to region.
  Japan is a good example. Its population peaked at 127.8 million in 2011 and is now back to around 126.8 million. It now has a median age of 45 and its population will inevitably continue to decline. The population decline has nothing to do with anything that happened since 2011, and everything to do with birth rates going back decades. In fact, the peak would have occurred before 2011, had it not been for increases in life expectancy.

  I would say that if your local congregation has a median age over 50, or even over 40, it is in inevitable long term decline, even if the numbers appear stable at the moment. Individuals fading, getting d.a.'ed or d.f.'ed would be just speeding up the process.

  So how do we estimate the median age?

  If you still attend Kingdom Hall, you could look around and try to estimate the median age of your congregation, which is the theoretical age that exactly half are older than, and half are younger than. There is mostly no need to know or guess anyone's actual age, or work out averages. Just start with your guestimate of the median age, and count those who are above and those who are below it. If the numbers aren't even, adjust your guestimate and count again. (I think it is easier in practice than how it may sound, reading this.)

  If estimating the median age as described above seems complicated, you could simply count the ratio of attendees over and under the age of, say, 50. That would still be useful info.

  
  

  If a significant number of people here were to do that exercise, and report the median age here, I think it should be possible to work out rough but realistic estimates of how many Witnesses there will be in, say, 10 and in 20 years time. If you do choose to respond:
  

  • please respond even if the news is disappointing
  • if you can, please indicate your country
  • if your congregation is unusually small (or large) please mention that as well.

  
  How about it?

  [Edit: missing paragraphs reinserted]
• 
  36

  Evolution is a Fact #28 - Something Darwin Didn't Say

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  one of my friends posted an inspirational picture on facebook this morning.

  even before i checked i knew that it was a fictional quote.

  it was written by somebody who has not grasped a basic fact about evolution.. darwin did not say this.... it is a common misunderstanding that evolution favours individuals who are able to adapt to their environment.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  shepherdless

  Hi Ruby,

  I don't understand that last post. In fact I don't see the article linked to his post. I fully agree with your earlier posts.

  At this stage, to me, Cofty's fundamental point stands. SBF (being the contrarian he is) has pointed out a limited and interesting exception.
• 
  36

  Evolution is a Fact #28 - Something Darwin Didn't Say

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  one of my friends posted an inspirational picture on facebook this morning.

  even before i checked i knew that it was a fictional quote.

  it was written by somebody who has not grasped a basic fact about evolution.. darwin did not say this.... it is a common misunderstanding that evolution favours individuals who are able to adapt to their environment.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  shepherdless

  Further to what Ruby says, if SBF (in his second post) is suggesting that phenotypic plasticity involves a change to a genome, I disagree. When read carefully and in context, particularly the next page, the paper doesn't say that at all.

  
  

  Otherwise it appears to me Cofty and SBF are a little at cross purposes.

  
  

  Anyway, an interesting yet complicated subject. I had not read about phenotypic plasticity before today.
• 
  375

  This thread is for proof that God exists

  by juandefiero in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  however, i haven't found any evidence to support that belief.. have you?

  if so please, show me the evidence that god exists, and i will believe along with you.. criteria:.

  (1) you must specify which god you are talking about;.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  shepherdless

  Jacob Meza states:

  The majority of U.S. scientists either belive in a diety or in a higher power.

  Jacob supports this contention with a 2009 Pew Research report that reads in part:

  According to the poll, just over half of scientists (51%) believe in some form of deity or higher power; specifically, 33% of scientists say they believe in God, while 18% believe in a universal spirit or higher power.

  The Pew Research sets out the same, in a bar chart.
  

  Cofty in reply:

  Your misuse of statistics was not very honest was it?

  [He attaches the same bar chart that actually supports Jacob Meza]

  Only 7% of members of the American National Academy of Scientists believe in god.

  
  Talesin effectively points out that the bar chart agrees with what Jacob Meza's statement.
  Cofty:

  The 7% figure refers to the NAS and comes from a different study.

  But no concession or apology to Jacob Meza No link to the "different study".
  
  Cofty, that is twice that you have done that sort of thing, on this thread alone. Perhaps you are just reading the comments and replying a bit to fast, and making mistakes. You have done excellent work, particularly in relation to demonstrating a large number of proofs that evolution is reality. You are a clear thinker, and a great deal of thought and research has gone into them. Great job! However, it is not your role to play high speed "wack a mole" with every potentially non-conforming opinion posted here. Or please at least take better aim.
  Those comments are intended to be constructive, not negative, by the way.
• 
  375

  This thread is for proof that God exists

  by juandefiero in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  however, i haven't found any evidence to support that belief.. have you?

  if so please, show me the evidence that god exists, and i will believe along with you.. criteria:.

  (1) you must specify which god you are talking about;.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  shepherdless

  Cofty:

  I can see why you might think that Shepherdless but actually Prologos is correct.

  
  

  All living things locally and temporarily defy entropy.

  To be precise, I said that life doesn't contravene "the second law of thermodynamics", and I stand by that. (Entropy was the term used by Prologos.)

  
  

  When you apply the second law of thermodynamics, you must first select the closed system that you are considering. By "closed", I mean with a boundary around that system where no energy enters or exits. The law predicts that if you can identify such a system, entropy within it can only increase.

  
  

  A living thing is not such a closed system. All living things eat, breathe, etc.

  
  

  Simple examples of what the second law of thermodynamics predicts are:

  - a petrol engine that runs out of fuel will eventually come to a halt;

  - it is impossible to build a "perpetual wheel"; and
  

  - if you tape over the mouth and nose of a living thing (and stick a cork in it), it will eventually die.

  If you are evaluating a living thing that CAN eat (ie get an external source of energy), or an engine that has an external supply of fuel, etc, then you have to apply the FIRST law of thermodynamics.

  So living things don't "defy" the second law of thermodynamics; it is just that that law does not apply to them. (I suppose in a strict literal sense, they do temporarily defy entropy.)

  In fact, the only being that I can think of that defies the second law of thermodynamics is God, but perhaps I will leave that discussion for another day.
• 
  375

  This thread is for proof that God exists

  by juandefiero in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  however, i haven't found any evidence to support that belief.. have you?

  if so please, show me the evidence that god exists, and i will believe along with you.. criteria:.

  (1) you must specify which god you are talking about;.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  shepherdless

  prologos:

  Life, particularly when it defies gravity, by walking upright and committing levitation, is doing the nearly impossible,not the easy, but the difficult, like doing the kennedyesque going to the moon.

  Nature may be fascinating. However, nature does not care what we think is "nearly impossible".

  The universe's origin, start, by separating matter (gravity) from energy ( not a null sum but 2 sum entity) and life, disrupting successfully the race to entropy, have the mark of a driving force, a master worker perhaps.

  1. Minor point, but I think you have some of the physics slightly muddled there.

  2. The words, "life, disrupting successfully the race to entropy" suggest to me that you have read some fundamentalist Christian literature that suggests that life or evolution contravene the second law of thermodynamics. I have read this argument in JW literature. I have also read this argument in other fundamentalist Christian literature. If this is where you are coming from, please let me know, so I can explain why that argument is wrong and dishonest.

  3. Just to repeat a point I made earlier in this thread. Lets say that you are correct; there is a "master worker" that created the universe. Who created the "master worker"? And who created the creator of the "master worker"? And who created the creator of the creator of the "master worker"?
• 
  375

  This thread is for proof that God exists

  by juandefiero in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  however, i haven't found any evidence to support that belief.. have you?

  if so please, show me the evidence that god exists, and i will believe along with you.. criteria:.

  (1) you must specify which god you are talking about;.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  shepherdless

  Sorry, I could only get back to this now. I am a sole recalcitrant in a JW household with limited confidential access to a computer.

  Slimboyfat: But reality shows that evolution tends toward similar forms all the time. It seems to have a deeps structure.

  The articles you link in support appear to support your proposition, but are limp when looked at in detail. Yes birds and bats both have wings to fly (no surprise there) but look closely at the outlines of those wing structures. In birds, the fingers on the dinosaur hands have virtually disappeared, presumably to minimise weight. In bats, the fingers have become long spindly supports for the wing. In pterodactyls, you will see another wing structure again. Hence there is only limited convergence, at least as far as I can see.

  I could make the same point about shark fins vs dolphin fins. So at this stage, I have to agree with Cofty on that one.

  Slimboyfat: Intelligence itself seems to be the natural result of the process, not a random freak. So what does that tell us? What does it mean if the universe is actually built in such a way as to result in a brain which can understand it?

  This is your better point. It certainly (to me at least) is one of the better arguments for a creator that I have ever heard. The universe has indeed resulted in a brain which understands (or tries to understand) it.

  However, at the moment, I am not satisfied on the first assumption, ie that "Intelligence itself seems to be the natural result of the process, not a random freak." Some evolutionary processes are rare. Cofty points out that flight has evolved at least 3 times (I count 4), making it unusual. Only once has evolution produced a species (our ancestor, homo erectus around 100 million years ago) that learnt to use fire as a tool.

  I would argue that when homo erectus learnt to use fire as a tool (giving it huge advantages but a need for a bigger brain), it meant there was a "natural selection" advantage in being bigger brained, more imaginative, more capable of planning, more capable of abstract thought, etc. (This is a big topic in itself.) This evolutionary outcome has only happened once in the history of life on Earth, and only comparatively recently, so it is not a "natural result".

  Also, the proposition assumes that humans are somehow superior to all other life forms, solely on the basis that humans are more self aware, capable of conceptual thought and curious about the universe, is presumptuous. It could be that this self awareness is just a byproduct of our niche in nature.

  Further, if as you speculate, that "Intelligence itself seems to be the natural result of the process, not a random freak." you still have to get around the "endless turtles" conundrum I referred to in an earlier post.

  I hope this all makes sense. Feel free to ignore it if it doesn't.
• 
  375

  This thread is for proof that God exists

  by juandefiero in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  however, i haven't found any evidence to support that belief.. have you?

  if so please, show me the evidence that god exists, and i will believe along with you.. criteria:.

  (1) you must specify which god you are talking about;.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  shepherdless

  Slimboyfat: Convergence in evolution and the apparent inevtabilty of consciousness is something to make you wonder if there is a reason for existence.

  
  

  I am not sure what you mean by "convergence in evolution". Are you saying that because the end product of evolution is a mind that can think, imagine, deal with abstract concepts etc, is potential evidence that the whole process was planned or designed?
• 
  375

  This thread is for proof that God exists

  by juandefiero in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  however, i haven't found any evidence to support that belief.. have you?

  if so please, show me the evidence that god exists, and i will believe along with you.. criteria:.

  (1) you must specify which god you are talking about;.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  shepherdless

  Hi Saintbertholdt, I didn't know that about Islam. I will try to look it up when I get a chance.

  Hi TheOldHippie, yes it is interesting to think about. Personally, I can't see how putting God outside the space-time continuum solves the "endless turtles" conundrum, but it can only be good to think about it from every possible angle.