Posts by Anders Andersen

75

Evolution and Atheism - please help

by Fernando in

not being familiar with either, my question is:.

what is the relationship between evolution and atheism?.

i'd love to hear from anyone and everyone, and also from any perspective.. without limiting the conversation in any way, i would of course also appreciate comments that are simple, clear, direct and correct (as i don't have the capacity to do a phd in evolution or atheism)..

Anders Andersen

The next statement will probably start a war :-D

The relationship between evolution and atheism is critical thinking.

While I fully agree with everyone stating that

accepting the fact of evolution does not mean you automatically reject the existence of God/gods
believing in God/gods does not mean you must reject evolution

it is my opinion that the ability to critically think about whatever is presented to you and whatever you already believe to be true, and willingness to learn and investigate leads to (amongst other things)

acceptance of evolution given the huge amount of evidence that supports it
seeing that the existence of God/gods is not supported by any (objectively verifiable) evidence, and (almost) anything proposed as evidence is either circular reasoning, or can be explained by natural phenomena, and that evidence proves your own God's existence just as much as any other gods' existences.

Does that mean that I think everyone who believes in any god can't or doesn't think critically? No, absolutely not.

I think they may have a blind spot regarding that belief, or they choose not to apply pure logical thinking to that area of life, like all of us do many times with different areas of our life (such as love, that is not really governed by critical thinking).

14

Evolution is a Fact - Index for Numbers 1 - 20

by cofty in

#1 protein functional redundancycomparing the sequences of amino acids in ubiquitous proteins confirms the relationship between all living things.. #2 dna functional redundancycomparison of the dna that codes for the amino acids of ubiquitous proteins predicts the tree of life with an astonishing degree of accuracy.. #3 ervsendogenous retroviruses that infected our ancestors are found in the same place of the genome of our closest primate cousins.

#4 smelly geneshundreds of broken genes that used to code for olfactory receptors in our ancestors are still found in our genome.. #5 vitamin cwhy humans can no longer make their own vitamin c and what that tells us about our species' history.. #6 human chromosome 2our second biggest chromosome is made up of two of our ancestors' genes stuck end-to-end.. #7 human egg yolk genehumans and our primate cousins have the genes for making vitellogenin and they are all broken in the same way.

#8 jumping genesbits of parasitic code called alu elements prove our common ancestry with primates.

Anders Andersen

Cofty,

Thank you very very much.

In near future I will probably use this as a basis to wake up a dear friend.

32

Karma kind of makes me smile.......am I bad?

by KateWild in

today at work one of the clients that came in for advice was an elder and his wife.

they must be having issues they need help with.

this elder was the elder that told us not to go to a domestic violence shelter or not to go to the police when my daughter got a black eye.. am i bad because i smiled inside that they are having problems?.

Anders Andersen

There also a word in Dutch for Schadenfreude: leedvermaak...meaning basically the same as Schadenfreude in German (suffering-pleasure).

But the German word sounds a lot more evil (like most German words :-p)

4

Evolution #3.1416 - this seems to sum up recent activity on this board

by sir82 in

jw
friends

http://www.gocomics.com/tomthedancingbug.

this fits so, so, so perfectly!

.

Anders Andersen

Nice one :-D

70

When is a theory 'just a theory'?

by HB in

the titles of cofty's excellent recent posts are all preceeded by the words "evolution is a fact...".

richard dawkins is encouraging people to use the term 'fact' in relation to evolution, especially when debating with creationists as the word 'theory' is confusing to many, and the latter often takes the discussion off on an often unproductive tangent.

the following may be of interest, it's from the bbc website - part of a regular series of articles called 'the vocabularist', discussing the origin and meaning of words: .

Anders Andersen

So, if I understand correctly...

1 guy who never researched anything related to geology, biology, chemistry, astronomy, etc say: "Nature exists, therefore an invisible person living in the sky must have created it"

is more compelling to you than all the evidence (including visible evidence, and there for everyone to check for themselves) that tens of thousands of people who thoroughly researched their specific fields have discovered?

And is the claim by that ancient person in Rom 1.20 more credible than my following claim?

"Life on earth has been created by 3 invisible, undetectable pink dudes living on Mars. By just looking at their creation their power is shown, and everyone should thank them for that".

70

When is a theory 'just a theory'?

by HB in

the titles of cofty's excellent recent posts are all preceeded by the words "evolution is a fact...".

richard dawkins is encouraging people to use the term 'fact' in relation to evolution, especially when debating with creationists as the word 'theory' is confusing to many, and the latter often takes the discussion off on an often unproductive tangent.

the following may be of interest, it's from the bbc website - part of a regular series of articles called 'the vocabularist', discussing the origin and meaning of words: .

Anders Andersen

@Fisherman,

Apparently not.

Please educate me, as we are trying to educate you. And please be as specific as you are requiring cofty to be.

If you are simply referring to looking at the universe and everything in it...well that's just evidence they exist, no divine creator to be seen.

If that is your resoning I could apply that 'evidence' to any of the creation myths that exist. And their existence only is just as much evidence of big bang and evolution.

So please state at least some specific evidence for divine creation.

70

When is a theory 'just a theory'?

by HB in

the titles of cofty's excellent recent posts are all preceeded by the words "evolution is a fact...".

richard dawkins is encouraging people to use the term 'fact' in relation to evolution, especially when debating with creationists as the word 'theory' is confusing to many, and the latter often takes the discussion off on an often unproductive tangent.

the following may be of interest, it's from the bbc website - part of a regular series of articles called 'the vocabularist', discussing the origin and meaning of words: .

Anders Andersen

briefly list the strongest evidence that show that humans evolved from any non human.

While that is being compiled, can you then please list the evidence (as has been requested before) there is for divine creation?

70

When is a theory 'just a theory'?

by HB in

the titles of cofty's excellent recent posts are all preceeded by the words "evolution is a fact...".

richard dawkins is encouraging people to use the term 'fact' in relation to evolution, especially when debating with creationists as the word 'theory' is confusing to many, and the latter often takes the discussion off on an often unproductive tangent.

the following may be of interest, it's from the bbc website - part of a regular series of articles called 'the vocabularist', discussing the origin and meaning of words: .

Anders Andersen

About the entropy: earth is not a closed system.

The sun is constantly sending energy to earth, and heat is constantly radiating from earth into space.

Here is some reading material for those who wish to educate themselves:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo.html

http://physics.gmu.edu/~roerter/EvolutionEntropy.htm

70

When is a theory 'just a theory'?

by HB in

the titles of cofty's excellent recent posts are all preceeded by the words "evolution is a fact...".

richard dawkins is encouraging people to use the term 'fact' in relation to evolution, especially when debating with creationists as the word 'theory' is confusing to many, and the latter often takes the discussion off on an often unproductive tangent.

the following may be of interest, it's from the bbc website - part of a regular series of articles called 'the vocabularist', discussing the origin and meaning of words: .

Anders Andersen

@Fisherman,

Your very one-sided way of reading and bolding the quote shows you're not willing to be honest and understand what the writer really said. Your Watchtower is showing.

Thomson remarks: "Change over time is a fact, and descent from common ancestors is based on such unassailable [meaning undeniable] logic that we act as though it is a fact.
Biologists consider it to be a scientific fact that evolution

So your own quote shows that the evidence is so overwhelming that evolution cannot be denied, and that those who actually know the subject best consider it a fact for all intents and purposes.

And here you are trying to bend a statement that confirms the robustness of the theory of evolution into a basis on which you can deny the undeniable.

Besides that, you have artfully tried dodge the questions I submitted:

If you cannot accept evolution because it is 'not a fact' while the evidence that supports it makes those who are experts in biology consider it a fact, on what basis are you accepting Bronze age myths as fact, maybe even absolute truth?

Is the evidence (if any) that you accept for any gods' existence more compelling than the evidence that supports evolution?

Is there any evidence that your specific God exists?

Can you present that evidence please?

Can anyone consider the existence of God a fact more than evolution can be considered a fact?

BTW, please don't bother replying with more of your word soup. I really don't care about that quote, or about your tries to make words change meaning.

Unless you have a direct (and somewhat readable) answer to (one of) my questions I probably won't read your reaction.

Have a good life!

31

The Bread Illustration (Feb 16 Broadcast) - Massive Contradiction

by fizzle in

jw
friends

so... bro flodin puts poison onto the first loaf of bread and says that this pictures someone "sinning against the holy spirit".

he then puts the bread into the trash can stating that jehovah completely discards anyone "sinning against the holy spirit"... meaning they cannot ever be forgiven...he says that the pharisees "sinned against the holy spirit" because they denied indisputable evidence of the operation of jehovah's holy spirit displayed by jesus... therefore jehovah would completely discard them... no way back for them.. fast forward a little... we have the bible character stephen...acts 6:8 says: now stephen, full of divine favor and power, was performing great wonders and signs among the people.so stephen was showing indisputable evidence of the operation of jehovah's holy spirit.now we come to the bible character paul (saul)... he was a pharisee.paul would have seen stephen in action... witnessing the indisputable evidence of the operation of jehovah's holy spirit first hand!yet paul not only waged war against all christians but he personally approved the killing (stoning) of stephen.according to the bread illustration paul should have been discarded by jehovah at this point for "sinning against the holy spirit"... he would have been put in the trash can... no way back at all...but what happened according to the bible?

jesus appeared to him on the road to damascus... he became one of the most zealous apostles in bible history with jehovah's full support!so what on earth is the bread illustration all about?

Anders Andersen

Haven't seen the propaganda movie, but from the description I think one thing is very clear:

Who is doing the contaminating in the illustration?

So who causes people to become 'apostates', or who causes people to sin against the HS?

Must be the GB and it's helper minions...:-D