Posts by Saethydd

16

Free Topic -Write What You Like

by tepidpoultry in

when i was exiting (clawing my way out) i read a tremendous amount of personal.

accounts on the jw recovery page which sadly closed, .

i would like to offer an opportunity for any who would like, to say a few words on .

Saethydd

Heaven

Chocolate.

I fully support that profound statment.

22

Looking for a Book on Evolution

by Saethydd in

i am wondering if anyone is aware of a book or series of videos designed to explain evolution to creationists, (specifically the jw strain of creationism if possible) without being patronizing or overly confrontational.

i would like to have something to recommend to people who challenge evolution, but i know that the sources which convinced me would turn most of them off because of the confrontational and at times condescending tone in which it's presented.. some examples of what i'm looking for would be someone who doesn't claim evolution is a fact until after they have presented all of the evidence that makes it a fact and also have addressed as many counter-arguments as possible..

Saethydd

I appreciate the input, however, I would ask that we try to remain on topic. I would rather this thread not go into a debate about evolution itself. However, if you are aware of a book that presents a strong argument against evolution based on objectively provable facts, and is not rife with a mountain logical fallacies please, by all means, include it here.

22

Looking for a Book on Evolution

by Saethydd in

i am wondering if anyone is aware of a book or series of videos designed to explain evolution to creationists, (specifically the jw strain of creationism if possible) without being patronizing or overly confrontational.

i would like to have something to recommend to people who challenge evolution, but i know that the sources which convinced me would turn most of them off because of the confrontational and at times condescending tone in which it's presented.. some examples of what i'm looking for would be someone who doesn't claim evolution is a fact until after they have presented all of the evidence that makes it a fact and also have addressed as many counter-arguments as possible..

Saethydd

I am wondering if anyone is aware of a book or series of videos designed to explain evolution to creationists, (Specifically the JW strain of creationism if possible) without being patronizing or overly confrontational. I would like to have something to recommend to people who challenge evolution, but I know that the sources which convinced me would turn most of them off because of the confrontational and at times condescending tone in which it's presented.

Some examples of what I'm looking for would be someone who doesn't claim evolution is a fact until after they have presented all of the evidence that makes it a fact and also have addressed as many counter-arguments as possible.

29

A Mathematic Perspective on Evolution

by Saethydd in

i would like to apologize in advance if any of my information on the biology side of this discussion is incorrect, because unfortunately it is not my strongest scientific subject on account of my being subtly encouraged to view it with distrust.. i've recently debated the of subject of evolution with my father, i made the argument that when viewed over several million years random mutation provides a more than adequate explanation for humans having evolved from a common ancestor with chimpanzees.

then he got this derisive look on his face a waved his hand saying "evolution's explanation for everything is the amount of time involved.".

so i decided i would examine this mathematically.

Saethydd

Saethydd, clearly, your Father is uneducated about evolution. Perhaps it is time he read an actual science book on the subject.

Yes, for his whole life he has had simplistic arguments filled with a mountain of logical fallacies used to "disprove" evolution. That's a lot of bias to overcome before one takes an honest look at the evidence, and it is a lot easier to make a logical fallacy than it is to see one or point it out to another person.

8

The Syrian Dan-El

by schnell in

i started reading deceptions and myths of the bible by lloyd graham tonight, and graham mentions that the book of daniel, like the story of joseph, is ripped off from a syrian poem about another hero named daniel (or dan-el).. a cursory google search doesn't pull up anything.

is this accurate?

has this ancient poem survived?

Saethydd

Interesting information, however, I know from experience that if you present the similarities between two such stories believers in the Bible will do one of two things.

1. If the story the Bible copies from was written down before the one in the Bible is supposed to have taken place, then they will say that any similarities are a coincidence.

2. If the story was written after the time the Bible story supposedly happened, (but still a solid thousand years before the Bible's version was written), then the second story is nothing more than a distortion of the Bible's "accurate" account.

The possiblilty that the Bible is also a distortion of actual events that were out of the ordinary but didn't defy every law of physics and biology, isn't a possibility that ever seems to cross their minds.

31

Young People Ask: I’m Attracted to the Same Sex—Does That Mean I’m Gay?

by pale.emperor in

eurgh!

more patronizing and uninformed reasoning from the "experts" at bethel.

this time tackling the sensitive subject of those attracted the the same sex.

Saethydd

Young People Ask: I'm Attracted to the Same Sex-Does That Mean I'm Gay?

Nope, it might mean you're bisexual.

On a slightly different note, National Geographic actually released an article about the subject of gender recently and it presented some interesting information. Gender is not a simple a matter as once believed. If I'm recalling the article correctly, your apparent gender is not always determined by which chromosome you receive at conception. In fact it's possible to have a body that is male while having the brain chemistry of a female, or vice versa. There are also cases of being born with a body that looks female, but around puberty the child's body changes drastically revealing the clitoris the child was once believed to have was actually a penis. So it is in fact literally possible to be born in the wrong body. So I wonder how this plays into this argument, would "God" still consider it a sin to have a relationship with a man if you had a body that looked female, but the brain chemistry of a male?

34

Young People Ask... When Can I Start Dating?

by pale.emperor in

quite possibly the most annoying and patronizing thing i've read in years.

comments of mine are in yellow.. .

she doesn't trust herself to make her own decisions and she's going to wait years even after she thinks she's ready.

Saethydd

@Finklestein, the book was called "Singles", wasn't it? Amazing how the same basic message is still being repeated.
Why the JW cult must resemble the Jedi order in the prequels is beyond me.

Heh, much the same thought occurred to me whenever I played a Jedi in Star Wars: the Old Republic. I remember thinking how familiar that mindset felt.

29

A Mathematic Perspective on Evolution

by Saethydd in

i would like to apologize in advance if any of my information on the biology side of this discussion is incorrect, because unfortunately it is not my strongest scientific subject on account of my being subtly encouraged to view it with distrust.. i've recently debated the of subject of evolution with my father, i made the argument that when viewed over several million years random mutation provides a more than adequate explanation for humans having evolved from a common ancestor with chimpanzees.

then he got this derisive look on his face a waved his hand saying "evolution's explanation for everything is the amount of time involved.".

so i decided i would examine this mathematically.

Saethydd

Unfortunately, the math isn't that simple. Brief--and inadequate--summary: Substitution takes place in parallel, not serial, which drastically cuts down time calculations.
Give this a shot: https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2010/12/29/theres-plenty-of-time-for-evolution/
The paper it's based upon: http://www.pnas.org/content/107/52/22454.full

Ah thank you, I will examine those articles

34

Young People Ask... When Can I Start Dating?

by pale.emperor in

quite possibly the most annoying and patronizing thing i've read in years.

comments of mine are in yellow.. .

she doesn't trust herself to make her own decisions and she's going to wait years even after she thinks she's ready.

Saethydd

I don't mean to play devil's advocate here, and I also do not agree that the only appropriate setting for a sexual relationship is marriage. But I do feel like there are good general standards that can be followed.

One must keep in mind that even practing safe sex leaves the possibility of the girl getting pregnant, which if both parties are not at least nominally prepared for it will cause a lot of problems. Either the burden of a child before one is ready or the emotional baggage of having aborted one's child, a decision which can haunt one decades later. So I would say the first standard to keep in mind is maturity.

Secondly I recommend that love be found amongst the couple, for one never knows which partner one may have to raise a child with.

These are personal standards however not ones I would push on anyone else. It is entirely possible that by advocating its strict stance on such matters the WTBTS is merely trying to avoid any lapses at all, however no matter what their intention no number of rules and guidelines can fully counter human nature, and in the end it seems more likely to cause one to have an unhealthy focus on sex and then have feelings of guilt over it.

29

A Mathematic Perspective on Evolution

by Saethydd in

i would like to apologize in advance if any of my information on the biology side of this discussion is incorrect, because unfortunately it is not my strongest scientific subject on account of my being subtly encouraged to view it with distrust.. i've recently debated the of subject of evolution with my father, i made the argument that when viewed over several million years random mutation provides a more than adequate explanation for humans having evolved from a common ancestor with chimpanzees.

then he got this derisive look on his face a waved his hand saying "evolution's explanation for everything is the amount of time involved.".

so i decided i would examine this mathematically.

Saethydd

I would like to apologize in advance if any of my information on the biology side of this discussion is incorrect, because unfortunately it is not my strongest scientific subject on account of my being subtly encouraged to view it with distrust.

I've recently debated the of subject of evolution with my father, I made the argument that when viewed over several million years random mutation provides a more than adequate explanation for humans having evolved from a common ancestor with chimpanzees. Then he got this derisive look on his face a waved his hand saying "evolution's explanation for everything is the amount of time involved."

So I decided I would examine this mathematically. According to evidence, humans diverged from chimps 6-8 millions years ago. (Smithsonian) The average rate of mutation in humans is approximately 10 per generation, meaning that one has approximately 10 base pairs changed in your DNA that one didn't inherit from either parent. (Harvard) The average mammalian genome has approximately 3 billion base pairs.

So with those demonstrable facts established let us consider the math. I'm going to work under the assumption that each generation of animal produces offspring at the average age of 20, meaning that in 6 million years there will have been 300,000 generations. Multiplying that by 10 for the average number of mutations and then by 2 to factor in both parents, I arrive back at 6 million as the number of base pair changes over this period of time. Now dividing that 6 million by the 3 billion total base pairs only brings me to a total possible change of 0.2% even doubling it to include the chimpanzee's divergence only gets me to 0.4%. Which is only a third of the way to the 1.2% difference that must be explained. Plus this simple equation that I devised doesn't factor in the possibility that not every one of these 6 million changes is unique.

Now I don't consider it likely that I found a hole in this theory that has been missed by every evolutionary biologist and geneticist over the last 100 years. So does anyone know of a reasonable explanation for this discrepancy? Is there some issue with my math that I am unaware of?