Posts by rem

81

OK, This is what I have to say

by peacepipe in

jw
friends

i need to put my two cents in about this even though i'm reading it a couple days after the last post.. when i think of the death of those i care about i usually have no problem picturing them going to heaven forever: some people just to me seem like there is nowhere else they could be.

those who i've been close to that have died that i'm questionable about them actually going to heaven i feel like in some way as long as there are those of us here to remember them they are still kept alive somehow.

when i really think about my own death i have a panic attack.

rem

Bridgette,

That was absolutely brilliant!

I think it's hilarious how Christians try to draw attention away from Jehovah's genocide by pointing to the attrocities of people who served other gods. Yeah - obviously ALL of the people were so bad that god had to slaughter them all, including the animals! You wouldn't want any animals going to hell, lol.

Oh, but sometimes we'll spare the animals and the virgin girls. Gee, I wonder what's gonna happen to those nice virgin girls? And how did they determine which ones were virgins in the first place? Hmmmmmmm.

rem

"Most people would rather die than think; in fact, they do so."
..........Bertrand Russell

16

Military reponse? Or lets not cause more violence

by bboyneko in

jw
friends

what to do if you happen upon a peace rally by stupid naive hemp-shirt-wearing college idiots, to teach them why force is sometimes needed: .

1) approach dumb rich ignorant student talking about "peace" and saying there should be, "no retaliation.

2) engage in brief conversation, ask if military force is appropriate.

rem

Bravo, bboy! That's great!

rem

"Most people would rather die than think; in fact, they do so."
..........Bertrand Russell

13

Evolution on PBS

by patio34 in

jw
friends

there is a great series airing on pbs re: evolution.

it's informative, up-to-date, and entertaining.

it's on in my area all sunday afternoon (it's 8 hours altogether).

rem

Pork Chop,

I asked whether you believe evolution happened or if you believe in special creation. You have not answered, so I still don't know what you believe.

If you believe in special creation by god, then why would you put any stock into Scientists who are skeptical about Darwinian natural selection, but still accept that evolution happened? They are only debating the mechanism, not the fact.

If you believe that evolution happened, then I understand your appeal to the ID argument. You must be aware that the argument for ID is not very convincing to most who are educated on this subject. Most see it as a thinly veiled attempt to "scientifically" promote the god of the gaps hypthesis.

As far as scientists being skeptical, I don't see a problem with that. Perhaps you are interpretting skeptical attitudes of some scientists as more than it is. I don't think many on that list have said that Darwinian natural selection is wrong, but that they have reserved judgement and more information is needed. One thing to consider is that Darwinian evolution has been under attack by skeptics and would-be debunkers for over 120 years and it has not only withstood the test of time, but has become stronger.

I think the ID arguement will someday be a footnote in evolutionary debate that, even though it lost, will only strengthen the naturalistic explanation even more.

rem

"Most people would rather die than think; in fact, they do so."
..........Bertrand Russell

41

Is evolution a fact or theory?

by sleepy in

jw
friends

is evolution a fact or a theory?.

i suppose it depends on what you mean.. evolution in the sense of change from one generation to the next seams to be fact.. is well observed that offspring from a given creature will differ from the parent in different ways and thus after many generation can come to be quite different.. also that the genes of a creature can be affected by radiation from the sun and be alter in a novel way producing new and unique features in its offspring ( as long as the mutation is in the sperm or the egg).. that we came about via changes in the genes that eventually created a very different creature than that existed many generations ago , is that a fact?.

this requires that not only that there are changes between generation but also that these changes could be directed by different environments to such a degree that only certain specialised features could survive and reproduce offspring whilst other creatures have died out and only remain in fossilised form.. what evidence is there that such environments can and have existed?

rem

Warren,

Of course, in the marketplace, computers have acquired these and many other new abilities, but not in a closed system. To mimic neo-Darwinian evolution, they would have to evolve improvements without input from programmers, starting with only programs already available. To suggest that computers might evolve significant improvements this way seems farfetched. Why? Can computers, without the input of new code, write for themselves any programs with fundamentally new meaning? Is there any example of an improvement
to personal computers that was written by the unguided random duplication, mutation and recombination of existing code?

What is the purpose of these software "improvements"? If the purpose is not to replicate themselves more efficiently then of course we wouldn't see such features added as information through random mutation - there is no natural selection to select such useless features (from the program's point of view). You seem to be confusing your analogy. The purpose of most computer programs are to benefit the user or the programmer - not to self replicate. Life is made up of organisms who's sole reason for being is to replicate. The new information they gain through mutation and natural selection has to give them some type of advantage in this goal.

It's fascinating to me that the materialists simply have no category for agency as a genuine type of causation. They carve up the world into natural causes and miracles, and seem completely blind that agency -- intelligent causation -- is not ipso facto "miraculous".... Suppose some engineers go out to learn why a bridge fell. They begin with natural causes (e.g., metal fatigue), and exhaust those. In the course of their investigation, however, they discover certain patterns of evidence that lead them to think the bridge was sabotaged. It fell because someone intended it to fall. That's a real possibility. But, on returning to report their findings, they're told, "nonsense...there must be a natural explanation. Keep looking! Don't come to us with these magical hypotheses." Would we blame the engineers for scratching their heads?

Obviously intelligent causation could be a factor in a bridge failure. We know humans created the bridge. We know humans exist. From your statement we might as well presume that Invisible Pink Unicorns brought the bridge down since we couldn't rule anything out. There is no evidence of any other intelligence in the universe apart from humans (I suppose we could also categorize animals as intelligent). God is just as much a fantasy as Santa Claus. From what I know of history, every time we have tried to postulate some higher intelligence for natural phenomenon we have been wrong. Why invent an intelligent cause when naturalistic explanations are adequate. Occam's razor and all.

If you philosophically limit inquiry and explanation to only the naturalistic hypothesis, then you violate the laws of logic which seek to produce reliable and trustworthy explanations. Applying naturalism to origins science is like an investigator assuming that every house fire is the result of accidental or natural causes and that arson (a fire started on purpose, by design) is not a permitted explanation. If the investigator rules out design before examining the evidence he will always conclude that fires result only from accidental or natural causes.

We don't have to look into every possibility. Only the likely ones. would it be illogical not to search for Invisible Pink Unicorns behind every pehonomenon since we trying not to limit our investigation? That is absurd. With fires, we know humans are capable of causing fires. We know humans exist. We don't know that elves exist, so we don't automatically suspect them in fires.

We know lightening happens. Should we assume that lightening has an intelligent cause, or at least investigate it for the sake of being logical? We know humans do not create lightening from the sky. We do know naturalistic explanations are adequate to understand lightening. I suppose if you run all of the numbers you could find some reason to believe there is some intelligent backing for the lightening phenomenon, but whether they do or not we know lightening is not intelligently caused. The same could be said about snowflakes, crystals, dreikanters, and other artifacts that LOOK designed but are not.

In the past humans thought that gods created lightening. They were wrong. Today many humans think that gods create and guide the design of life. History has shown the god of the gaps hypothesis to always be wrong in the face of natural explanations. My educated guess is that ID will just be another footnote in the evolution debate. One (hopefully) last effort to keep the god hypothesis and make it look somehow scientific.

rem

"Most people would rather die than think; in fact, they do so."
..........Bertrand Russell

41

Is evolution a fact or theory?

by sleepy in

jw
friends

is evolution a fact or a theory?.

i suppose it depends on what you mean.. evolution in the sense of change from one generation to the next seams to be fact.. is well observed that offspring from a given creature will differ from the parent in different ways and thus after many generation can come to be quite different.. also that the genes of a creature can be affected by radiation from the sun and be alter in a novel way producing new and unique features in its offspring ( as long as the mutation is in the sperm or the egg).. that we came about via changes in the genes that eventually created a very different creature than that existed many generations ago , is that a fact?.

this requires that not only that there are changes between generation but also that these changes could be directed by different environments to such a degree that only certain specialised features could survive and reproduce offspring whilst other creatures have died out and only remain in fossilised form.. what evidence is there that such environments can and have existed?

rem

Warren,

As for intermediates, evolutionists can ALWAYS concoct SOME kind of impressive-looking evolutionary sequence.

What do you propose? That some sky daddy was actively designing these creatures, but changed his mind and destroyed over 90% of them in great extinction events throughout history? Or perhaps he didn't design them correctly and they didn't survive in their environment? Is the sky daddy simply incompetent or fickle? What's gonna happen to us when he gets tired of our design? Are we just a prototype to something better or do you believe we are the end-all-be-all creation? Who is this sky daddy? Is it an invisible pink unicorn? Is it just one or many? Does it even have a personality? Intelligence does not necessarily denote a personality. Could you really call the creator of the many half baked creatures on this planet intelligent?

Do you see how ridiculous the alternative sounds?

rem

"Most people would rather die than think; in fact, they do so."
..........Bertrand Russell

41

Is evolution a fact or theory?

by sleepy in

jw
friends

is evolution a fact or a theory?.

i suppose it depends on what you mean.. evolution in the sense of change from one generation to the next seams to be fact.. is well observed that offspring from a given creature will differ from the parent in different ways and thus after many generation can come to be quite different.. also that the genes of a creature can be affected by radiation from the sun and be alter in a novel way producing new and unique features in its offspring ( as long as the mutation is in the sperm or the egg).. that we came about via changes in the genes that eventually created a very different creature than that existed many generations ago , is that a fact?.

this requires that not only that there are changes between generation but also that these changes could be directed by different environments to such a degree that only certain specialised features could survive and reproduce offspring whilst other creatures have died out and only remain in fossilised form.. what evidence is there that such environments can and have existed?

rem

Warren,

All the computer simulation has to prove is that it is POSSIBLE to create information from natural selection and random mutation. Since it IS possible and has been observed, the rest of your cut and paste job about computer models is moot. The fact that the simulation doesn't have all of the details of real life does not detract from the fact that information CAN be created by naturalistic means.

Just because a computer simulation of a wing in a wind tunnel doesn't have all of the details of physics doesn't mean that a wing can't really fly. The fundamentals are sound, the details are what make things interesting.

Try and see the big picture.

rem

"Most people would rather die than think; in fact, they do so."
..........Bertrand Russell

41

Is evolution a fact or theory?

by sleepy in

jw
friends

is evolution a fact or a theory?.

i suppose it depends on what you mean.. evolution in the sense of change from one generation to the next seams to be fact.. is well observed that offspring from a given creature will differ from the parent in different ways and thus after many generation can come to be quite different.. also that the genes of a creature can be affected by radiation from the sun and be alter in a novel way producing new and unique features in its offspring ( as long as the mutation is in the sperm or the egg).. that we came about via changes in the genes that eventually created a very different creature than that existed many generations ago , is that a fact?.

this requires that not only that there are changes between generation but also that these changes could be directed by different environments to such a degree that only certain specialised features could survive and reproduce offspring whilst other creatures have died out and only remain in fossilised form.. what evidence is there that such environments can and have existed?

rem

Warren,

Instead of cutting and pasting arguments from authors who are intent on mischaracterizing such computer simulations you should try one yourself. Download Tierra and run it.

The person you quote says that Tierra creates viruses. That is true, but it is a red herring. Tierra also creates other completely independend programs that reproduce themselves. Many times, these programs will be much larger than the original - this means there is new information. Thus your premise is incorrect.

I have created several, if not hundreds of these non-virus, self replicating programs on my computer. Sometimes they use less instructions than the original, sometimes more. It is true that the smaller programs tend to be more successful, but that is due to natural selection within the VM environment - they are able to use less memory and reproduce faster than larger programs.

rem

"Most people would rather die than think; in fact, they do so."
..........Bertrand Russell

13

Evolution on PBS

by patio34 in

jw
friends

there is a great series airing on pbs re: evolution.

it's informative, up-to-date, and entertaining.

it's on in my area all sunday afternoon (it's 8 hours altogether).

rem

Pork Chop,

Just curious. Do you believe evolution happened or do you believe in special creation by god?

Again, just curious.

rem

"Most people would rather die than think; in fact, they do so."
..........Bertrand Russell

33

October 7th Ex-JW gathering in San Francisco

by Stacey in

jw
friends

i hadn't seen any recent posts about this event.

tonight i spoke to paul thomason, the organizer of the event.

he said that last year they had about 18 in attendance.

rem

Stacey,

I can guarantee you that we will not be putting our chairs in a circle and sharing out JW experiences.

WHAT???!!!! We're not? Well count me out!

Just kiddin' :)

rem

"Most people would rather die than think; in fact, they do so."
..........Bertrand Russell

41

Is evolution a fact or theory?

by sleepy in

jw
friends

is evolution a fact or a theory?.

i suppose it depends on what you mean.. evolution in the sense of change from one generation to the next seams to be fact.. is well observed that offspring from a given creature will differ from the parent in different ways and thus after many generation can come to be quite different.. also that the genes of a creature can be affected by radiation from the sun and be alter in a novel way producing new and unique features in its offspring ( as long as the mutation is in the sperm or the egg).. that we came about via changes in the genes that eventually created a very different creature than that existed many generations ago , is that a fact?.

this requires that not only that there are changes between generation but also that these changes could be directed by different environments to such a degree that only certain specialised features could survive and reproduce offspring whilst other creatures have died out and only remain in fossilised form.. what evidence is there that such environments can and have existed?

rem

Anyone who thinks that Natural Selection and random mutation cannot increase information has never run computer simulations which demolish this claim. The computer program called Tierra, which I have run on my machine, creates self replicating programs that compete with other programs, die, and occasionally have mutations when they reproduce. From one parent program, viruses and more complex programs are created from nothing more than Natural Selection (the programs that reproduce the best in the computer environment win) and random mutation.

The problem with such analogies as works of English literature is that the only purpose of life is to reproduce. There is no end product that evolution is shooting for. As long as the DNA survives another generation it could care less whether the mechanism for propogating DNA is bacteria or humans. Even this language is to anthropomorphic. The only reason organs developed is because the organisms with such organs had some sort of advantage over the ones that didn't. There was no goal for the perfect wing or eye. After millions of years of refinement, we see what we have: many optimal and many suboptimal designs for organisms in their environment. The common denominator is that they are all "good enough" to survive and reproduce.

rem

"Most people would rather die than think; in fact, they do so."
..........Bertrand Russell