RunningMan

Joined

• started 101 topics
• posted 3,301 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by RunningMan

• 
  7

  UK Divorce rate falls

  by Fe2O3Girl in

  1. social
  2. current

  http://www.guardian.co.uk/uklatest/story/0,,-6049497,00.html

  divorce rates at five-year low .

  press association .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  RunningMan

  If the divorce rate for women over 60 increased by 2%, shouldn't the divorce rate for men over 60 have increased by exactly the same amount? I mean, who did they divorce?
• 
  45

  Do you believe the Ark of the Covenant still exists (or ever existed)?

  by gaiagirl in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  while thinking about more bible related legends depicted in films, a rather obvious one came to mind...the ark of the covenant.

  do you think it still exists, hidden somewhere?

  or do you think it was captured and destroyed following one of the defeats of israel?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  RunningMan

  Now, there's been a lot of talk about how anyone who touched the magic box, other than the high priest, would die instantly.

  We all seem to forget that the Phillistines stole the ark and desecrated it for 7 months, but God smote them with piles until they carved golden hemorrhoids. (1 Sam 5 & 6). So, the ark turned out to be a huge pain in the ass, but why didn't they die instantly, like Uzzah?
• 
  7

  UK Divorce rate falls

  by Fe2O3Girl in

  1. social
  2. current

  http://www.guardian.co.uk/uklatest/story/0,,-6049497,00.html

  divorce rates at five-year low .

  press association .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  RunningMan

  Actually, it is not surprising that divorce rates, crime rates, etc, are falling. The western world experienced a huge population bubble after the second world war. As this group moved through its teens and early twenties, the crime rate went up, because there were more people in their prime crime-producing years.

  As this group moved through their early twenties to mid-thirties, the marraige rate went up, and along with new marraiges, the divorce rate went up. Today, that group is 44 and older. By this point in a person's life, they and their relationships are more stable. So, having a greater proportion of the population at a stable age lowers the divorce rate.

  And, of course, the antichrist is maneouvering us into a false sense of security.
• 
  45

  Do you believe the Ark of the Covenant still exists (or ever existed)?

  by gaiagirl in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  while thinking about more bible related legends depicted in films, a rather obvious one came to mind...the ark of the covenant.

  do you think it still exists, hidden somewhere?

  or do you think it was captured and destroyed following one of the defeats of israel?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  RunningMan

  Well, let's break this into pieces.

  First of all, the Israelites really existed a long time ago.

  Secondly, they had a religion.

  Thirdly, religions commonly have artifacts, one of which could be a box containing other items, all of which are considered holy.

  So, did the Ark really exist? Well, sure, why not?

  Is it still around today? Well, some ancient artifacts have been recovered. It is conceivable that this one is buried in a pile of rubble or at the back of a cave. Its recovery gets more and more unlikely with time, but it is not impossible that it may someday be found.

  The big issue that I have avoided is: did the damn thing have supernatural powers? Of course not.
• 
  91

  Evolution still bugs me

  by Geronimo in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i know there are a lot of threads on evolution and creation and i've read a few here and there.

  how can complex systems arise of themselves in the face of entropy?

  one evolutionist book i read used snowflakes to show this is possible.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  RunningMan

  Nice examples, Abadon. Mind if a steal some?
• 
  91

  Evolution still bugs me

  by Geronimo in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i know there are a lot of threads on evolution and creation and i've read a few here and there.

  how can complex systems arise of themselves in the face of entropy?

  one evolutionist book i read used snowflakes to show this is possible.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  RunningMan

  Actually, I've posted the whole thing. It only deals with evolution in passing. It has been posted here, just look under my topics. Or, I can email a formatted copy to you, if you PM me your email address.
• 
  21

  WERE THERE ANY BIG ANNOUNCEMENTS IN YOUR COMGREGATION?

  by badboy in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  any takers?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  RunningMan

  Well, they can be forgiven for fornicating, but cheating on your service report is a dfing offense.
• 
  91

  Evolution still bugs me

  by Geronimo in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i know there are a lot of threads on evolution and creation and i've read a few here and there.

  how can complex systems arise of themselves in the face of entropy?

  one evolutionist book i read used snowflakes to show this is possible.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  RunningMan

  You've raised a long and complicated question, so don't be surprised if your responses are long and complicated. In the interests of not reinventing the wheel, I would like to post some excerpts from my book that might deal with your questions.

  The first, and most common argument in favour of creation is called the argument from design:

  The Argument from Design: The most common reasoning that I encounter is that the order in nature indicates that someone ordered it. Therefore, there must be a supreme being. A common illustration is of a man walking on the beach. He encounters a watch. Would he think that the watch was formed by the random forces of nature? Of course not. That would be foolish. Yet, we look at the order and complexity of the human body, the animal kingdom, the beauty of our planet, and the vastness and complexity of the universe, and think it came about by chance – absurd!

  Well, there are more than a few holes in this reasoning. For example, how does one define order? I can watch crystals forming spontaneously. They are complex and ordered, yet they are not arranged by anyone. They form because they follow simple rules (actually conveniences more than rules), and repeat them many times. On the other hand, I can look at my pen, which is simpler than a crystal, and know that it was manufactured. How do I know that? It is because I have seen pens before and I know where they come from. In other words, we recognize design, because we know which items in our society have been designed. If I see a completely alien item, I would not know if it were designed or formed naturally. So, are humans formed by the repetition of basic universal rules, or were they designed? The answer is that we can’t tell by looking at them.

  Additionally, this argument ignores the fact that humans reproduce, whereas watches do not. Reproduction introduces variations and selection into the mix. Humans can and do change spontaneously over the generations. We can see it happening. Watches do not change spontaneously over the generations. We can see it not happening.

  The biggest flaw in the argument from design is that it leads to an infinite regression. If the universe is so ordered that it could only have come from a superior creator, then how much more must that creator be ordered? If humans must have been designed, then God certainly must have been designed… and his God, and his God, and so on, with each one being more complex than the previous. You can’t just switch off the logic at an arbitrary point. If logic demands that order requires a creator, then the creator must have a creator.

  Evolution and creation begin at the same point – Something came from nothing. The universe is simpler than God. So, if something had to come from nothing, it might as well have been the universe. Evolution wins this round because it has no need for an unnecessary middle step.

  Here is another common argument:
  

  The Argument from Incredulity: Another common argument is that people just can’t fathom that something came about by chance. Commonly cited somethings are the hand and the eye. If humans can’t explain something, then it must come from a higher power.

  This isn’t much of an argument, and it is appropriately labeled “the argument from ignorance”, reasoning that if you don’t know something, it must be supernatural. The insulting connotation of the label is unintentional, but appropriate.

  Interestingly, as humans increase their knowledge from the days of cave men to ever increasingly sophisticated science, we find the realm of God shrinking. The more we learn, the smaller God’s relevance becomes.

  This one's been tried on me many times:

  The Perfect Fit Argument: Many times, I have been told that it is too much to think that the universe could fit together so well, simply by chance. Why, if the earth was just a little closer to the sun, or the atmosphere had just a slightly different composition, life could not be sustained. Plants and animals are not just functional, but also beautiful, and in some cases delicious. Each piece of the ecology of the earth supports other parts, creating a delicately balanced interdependancy. The odds of all of these things coinciding are infinitesimal. How could this happen by chance?

  I would like to refute this argument by borrowing an illustration from Douglas Adams. If you freeze a puddle of water and lift it up, you will find that the contours of the puddle perfectly fit the shape of the hole it is in. Uncanny, isn’t it? What are the odds of a puddle with exactly that shape, finding a hole with precisely the same shape? The odds of the water molecules accidentally forming themselves into that exact shape boggle the mind. Therefore all puddles are designed.

  The point is that we fit our environment because we evolved to fit it. We breathe the composition of air that the earth produces, because that was the only way we could develop. We inter-depend on other species and life forms because that was the only way we could develop. And, if the earth were closer to the sun, well, there would be no life on earth, just as there is no life on Mercury and a hundred million other planets.

  Finally, the fit is not perfect. There are many flaws in our design, and in the design of our planet. Fortunately, they are not fatal flaws, but enough to nullify the argument.

  Finally, here is the one that you raised - the idea of decreasing entropy:
  

  The Second Law of Thermodynamics: I can’t count the number of times that this law has been quoted to me by fundamentalists posing as engineering experts, most of whom couldn’t define thermodynamics if their life depended on it. To put it simply, the argument asserts that the second law of thermodynamics requires systems to increase in entropy over time. In other words, if left completely on their own, things decay, disintegrate, and become more random. So, evolution violates this law by proposing that life has ordered itself, actually becoming less random, all by itself. Creation, on the other hand, supports this law, because it begins with a state of ultimate order.

  The first refutation involves the poor definition given by creationists. The second law of thermodynamics actually states: "No process is possible in which the sole result is the transfer of energy from a cooler to a hotter body."

  One of the problems with this is that the idea that order does not come from disorder is actually a spurious addition and simplistic misapplication of the law. We see seemingly spontaneous order all the time – snowflakes, crystals, sand dunes, etc. So, the second law does not say what creationists claim that it says. If order cannot come from disorder, why does it keep happening?

  The other problem is that even if we grant them their definition, it would only hold true in a closed system. The earth is not a closed system. Huge amounts of energy are added to our earth every second of the day, in multiple forms, such as heat, light, and radiation. We are also affected by the forces of external gravity and momentum.

  In our universe, we find pockets of spontaneous order, but we also find vast tracts of disorder. If you sum the total of entropy in the universe, you find that it does indeed decrease, just like the second law states.

  So, the second law of thermodynamics does not indicate a creator. This claim shows a complete lack of understanding, not only of the law that it cites, but also of the nature of evolution.

  Now, let's flip it around, and see what evidence there is in favour of evolution:

  The Evidence for evolution
  If we evolved, what would you expect to see? Well, I would expect to see the occasional spontaneous extinction as the environment changes (over 99% of all species that have ever lived are now extinct). I would expect to see mutations and adaptations (like the ever-mutating cold virus). I would expect to see survival of the fittest in action (like wolves culling a deer herd). I would expect to see the occasional evolutionary throwback (like a furry person). I would expect to see evolutionary remnants (like our plantaris muscle). I would expect to see junk DNA. I would expect to see genetic similarities within and between species. I would expect to see a fossil record showing early and intermediate stages of life and development. I would also expect the fossil record to be incomplete and confusing, because it was formed by ever-changing conditions and ravaged by time.

  In other words, I would expect to see exactly what I do see.

  
  

  Where the Hell is He?What I don’t see is God.

  I can prove that I exist. You can physically test my body. You can communicate with me. I can make things happen. I’m just an ordinary guy, yet no one doubts my existence. But, God is almighty, all-knowing, and ever- present. With conspicuous attributes like that, how can his presence be in doubt?

  Where the hell is he? If he just showed up, we could end this debate.

  
  

  Documentation
  The God concept with which I was raised came complete with a set of documentation. As I have shown in this book, the documentation is pretty damning. It is filled with errors, contradictions, and moral and logical flaws. It makes specific claims about history that can be categorically disproved, such as the creation account, the flood myth, and the origin of languages. It demonstrates a scientific knowledge equivalent to a bronze age sheepherder, which is pretty surprising for someone who knows everything, and pretty suspicious, considering how the book was transmitted to us.

  I realize that this only deals with my own childhood God, and everyone’s may be different, but for me, it was God’s own word that killed God.

  
  

  The Evolution of God
  If we look back over the history of civilization, we find plenty of evidence for evolution. Even God seems to have evolved. We can study his progression from simple tribal God, to a pantheon of nature Gods, to an all powerful single God. We can observe him splitting his evil side off into a separate being. We can watch him convert from a God of wrath and war to a God of love.

  In other words, people have made God in their image.

  
  

  The Existence of Evil
  One of the oldest arguments against God is the existence of evil. I will not pretend to give this one a thorough debate, since it has already filled countless volumes, and I only have a few paragraphs for it.

  Basically, if God is perfect, and everything he does is perfect, and he made everything, then why do bad things happen? And, when they do happen, if God is loving, all-powerful, and all-knowing, why doesn’t he help?

  These are strong arguments that require considerable rationalization to explain. Personally, I have never been satisfied with the answers. If you were God, and you witnessed children going to the ovens in Auschwitz, could you do nothing?

  
  

  Can I Prove That God Does Not Exist?No. Next question.

  Actually, I will spend a little more time on this one. How can I prove the existence of an incorporeal being? Everything I test comes up blank. He has no physical characteristics to measure. He does not respond to communication. He has had no impact on any part of the universe.

  Is it reasonable to believe in something simply because it cannot be disproved? If I claim that there is a chocolate cake orbiting the sun somewhere in the asteroid belt, would you believe me? You can’t prove there isn’t one. And, even if you did, I would simply clarify that my claim was for a spiritual chocolate cake.

  Whether we realize it or not, we all require evidence for our beliefs. And, the more outrageous the idea, the more evidence we require. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Yet, the extraordinary claims regarding God come with no evidence at all.

  The world is filled with an infinite number of ideas. I don’t believe every one that cannot be disproved. I need some sort of indication – anything – that something is a fact before I can consider it.

  Hope this helps.
• 
  22

  Artificial Insemination

  by noontide in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  im a long time lurker, first time poster.

  my question is this; if a sister in the congregation decided she wanted to have a baby, but was not married and went to a fertility clinic and was artificially inseminated, could she be disfellowshiped?

  she didnt have sex, so she did not commit fornication.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  RunningMan

  I don't think this quote has been put up yet:

  ”A case of human artificial insemination was recorded as long ago as 1799. But in recent years this has come to be more widely practiced. According to The New York Times, a woman who is artificially inseminated and bears a child for another woman, as a substitute for her, is called a surrogate mother. The infertile wife and her husband agree to this arrangement, and when the surrogate mother gives birth the baby is adopted by the couple. The sperm in this case could be from the husband of the couple or from another donor. Although such an arrangement may be approved by many in the world, the Christian rightfully asks whether it is in harmony with God’s laws. The Bible, at Leviticus 18:20, is clear on this point when it says: “You must not give your emission as semen to the wife of your associate to become unclean by it.” Artificial insemination of a woman by a donor other than her legal husband, makes her guilty of adultery, a sin against God. (Deuteronomy 5:18) The sperm donor and the surrogate woman have not been yoked together by God in matrimony.—Matthew 19:4-6.” (Watchtower 1984 8/15 p 26)
• 
  15

  Watchtower display in Yellowstone Park this morning

  by RunningMan in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  this morning, i drove through yellowstone park, on my way to jackson hole.

  just before noon, i saw a sign that said, west thumb geyser basin.

  it looked interesting, so i wheeled in.. after seeing the geysers, i noticed a couple people sitting behind a desk with a display beside them.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  RunningMan

  
  
  This morning, I drove through Yellowstone park, on my way to Jackson Hole. Just before noon, I saw a sign that said, “West Thumb Geyser Basin.” It looked interesting, so I wheeled in.

  After seeing the geysers, I noticed a couple people sitting behind a desk with a display beside them. On their other side was a sign that said something like “This group is exercising its first amendment rights. It is not affiliated or endorsed by the park in any way.”

  The man had short, dark, greasy hair. The woman was sitting under an umbrella. As I made my way around the front, sure enough, the display was featuring the “What does Dog Require of us” brochure, and they had a sign inviting people to sign up for a Bible study, or check them out on line at watchtower.org.

  Now, this park was virtually full. There must have been 200 cars in the lot and several tour busses. The walkways and the building were bustling with people. But, there wasn’t a soul within 50 feet of these two rejects. It’s like they were wearing normality repellant, or something.

  I can’t believe they are embarrassing themselves like this. They are putting themselves into the same category as Moonies and Hari Krishnas.

  But, it’s a pretty slack way of getting their time in. Say, at just before noon on a Sunday, shouldn’t they be at the meeting?