Posts by Anders Andersen

90

Evolution Hole #1 - Origin of Life

by shadow in

disclaimer: my graduate degree is in business, not science so i'm writing as a layman in this field.

yes, i know that someone is going to say that evolution does not encompass this topic and should be sectioned off under abiogenesis.

i'm not trying to argue semantics here but it seems like a case of avoiding an uncomfortable subject.

Anders Andersen

Do I pretend to understand this creator and how the creator originated? Not at all and why should humans expect to? What have humans discovered about our place in the universe? We can't even begin to comprehend the visible universe.

I'm glad you have this point of view.

Do you agree then, that given the fact that currently neither creationists nor those who accept the evidence for evoltution have a decent understanding of how life began, it's fair to not use that argument against the other side?

So, not understanding where God came from does not invalidate any evidence for His existence, and the fact that abiogenese is not currently understood is no evidence against evolution.

And in that case, please present evidence against evolution other than 'we don't know how life started'.

And maybe start presenting some evidence that support creation?

90

Evolution Hole #1 - Origin of Life

by shadow in

disclaimer: my graduate degree is in business, not science so i'm writing as a layman in this field.

yes, i know that someone is going to say that evolution does not encompass this topic and should be sectioned off under abiogenesis.

i'm not trying to argue semantics here but it seems like a case of avoiding an uncomfortable subject.

Anders Andersen

For those saying that evolution cannot have happened because we don't know how life started:

Suppose we find a dead body with multiple bullet holes and knife wounds in a room sealed shut from the inside, and no weapons are found anywhere.

Should we conclude this person was not killed or is not currently dead just because we can't explain yet where the weapons are, or who did it, or how the room was locked from the inside?

Should we rejects all the facts that show us how life evolved , just because we don't know (yet) how it started?

Should we reject the facts for the existence of gravity, because we don't know how/why gravity works?

And if you can't accept that organic life (which is basically a collection of self-replicating molecules) came from non-replicating molecules, and argue that it can't be true because we don't exactly know how it happened, please explain to us the mechanism by which non-organic life (e.g. God) started.

Because if you can't explain how non-organic life started, all that follows (e.g. Bible, religion) cannot be true either...

So, my current position is:

Start of spiritual life: Please provide evidence of existence first
Start of organic life: some ideas, nothing conclusive yet...
Evolution of life: as much evidence as there is for the existence of gravity. Fact.

475

What is the alternative to JW?

by Formerbrother in

i mean this with all due respect, i would like to hear from genuine people who think jw have it wrong and then what is the truth?.

im not talking about silly little quibbles here and there.. is jehovah real?

the the bible is word?

Anders Andersen

Oh and for everyone looking to join a new group of any kind, please make sure they don't score too high on the checklist for high-demands/high-control groups (cults):

http://www.icsahome.com/articles/characteristics

Compare these patterns to the situation you were in (or in which you, a family member, or friend is currently involved). This list may help you determine whether there is cause for concern. Bear in mind that this list is not meant to be a “cult scale” or a definitive checklist to determine whether a specific group is a cult. This is not so much a diagnostic instrument as it is an analytical tool.
The group displays excessively zealous and unquestioning commitment to its leader and (whether he is alive or dead) regards his belief system, ideology, and practices as the Truth, as law.
Questioning, doubt, and dissent are discouraged or even punished.
Mind-altering practices (such as meditation, chanting, speaking in tongues, denunciation sessions, and debilitating work routines) are used in excess and serve to suppress doubts about the group and its leader(s).
The leadership dictates, sometimes in great detail, how members should think, act, and feel (for example, members must get permission to date, change jobs, marry—or leaders prescribe what types of clothes to wear, where to live, whether or not to have children, how to discipline children, and so forth).
The group is elitist, claiming a special, exalted status for itself, its leader(s), and its members (for example, the leader is considered the Messiah, a special being, an avatar—or the group and/or the leader is on a special mission to save humanity).
The group has a polarized us-versus-them mentality, which may cause conflict with the wider society.
The leader is not accountable to any authorities (unlike, for example, teachers, military commanders or ministers, priests, monks, and rabbis of mainstream religious denominations).
The group teaches or implies that its supposedly exalted ends justify whatever means it deems necessary. This may result in members’ participating in behaviors or activities they would have considered reprehensible or unethical before they joined the group (for example, lying to family or friends, or collecting money for bogus charities).
The leadership induces feelings of shame and/or guilt in order to influence and/or control members. Often, this is done through peer pressure and subtle forms of persuasion.
Subservience to the leader or group requires members to cut ties with family and friends, and to radically alter the personal goals and activities they had before they joined the group.
The group is preoccupied with bringing in new members.
The group is preoccupied with making money.
Members are expected to devote inordinate amounts of time to the group and group-related activities.
Members are encouraged or required to live and/or socialize only with other group members.
The most loyal members (the “true believers”) feel there can be no life outside the context of the group. They believe there is no other way to be and often fear reprisals to themselves or others if they leave (or even consider leaving) the group.

475

What is the alternative to JW?

by Formerbrother in

i mean this with all due respect, i would like to hear from genuine people who think jw have it wrong and then what is the truth?.

im not talking about silly little quibbles here and there.. is jehovah real?

the the bible is word?

Anders Andersen

@Formerbrother,

Why do you assume an alternative true religion exists in the first place?

And within that single question, many questions are implied:

Does true religion even exist at all, or are they all (at least partially) false?
Is there a difference between true religion and false religion? Can there only be 1 true (enough) religion?
Does God even care which religion you choose? How would you know?
Do you even need to belong to a religion to be OK with God?

If there is a true alternative, it will come your way (as I am convinced a truly loving God would make that happen if he wants us to know the true religion).

No need to stick with known liars and false prophets until that time; it will only restrict your search.

Also, the Bible clearly states that it's not okay to associate with liars and people who hide their true identity (like the Borg does)

Your way of thinking is heavily influenced by JW doctrine...."where else would we go?"

Well even without being a JW you can pray, spread the good news, love God above all, and your neighbour just as much.

13

A Thought Experiment

by InjusticeSystem in

i am hoping some of you may be up for participating in a little creative thought experiment .

the question i would like to pose (and if it has already been asked i apologize, for some reason i cannot search for topics on my mobile) is this: what would the evidence show if the jehovah's witness' literal reading of genesis was true?

i realize that is a fairly broad question, but for example a more pointed question could be: if the vapor canopy hypothesis is correct (i have confirmed with my elder father that this is still a currently accepted understanding), what evidence in our genome or that of other creatures or on earth would we expect to see?

Anders Andersen

No evidence of human activity before 4026BCE, and probably not for long time after that either
Humanity migration patterns originating in the Middle East instead of Africa
Global geological evidence for a global flood
Insanely high rate of new species evolving (yes, otherwise we couldn't have this many species after the flood)
Different types of species (e.g. marsupials) not just in isolated locations like Australia, but spread out across the globe from the Middle East
Complete wipeout of civilizations (Chinese, Egyptian) by the flood, to be replaced by completely different civilizations after hundreds of years

I'll leave all the evidence supporting evolution and contradicting creationism for those more readily equipped for that.

19

A conversation with my dad

by magotan in

i talked to my dad today, after i text him when i was angry after a night out.

i'm starting to get closure on my parents relationship with regards to me.the dynamic between them versus me is abusive.

my dad didn't think i had any reason to be bitter.he said i chose to leave "jehovahs people" and this is what i should expect as treatment.

Anders Andersen

You could ask your dad what he would thinks/feels when a JW bible student is 'persecuted' by his friends and family.

What does he feel when a bible students friends and family decide to never talk to him again because he is studying with JW...does he see the parallel?

133

What are the biggest holes in evolution?

by shadow in

how honest are the proponents of evolution?

idk but curious to see what type of response there is on a topic like this or does their study only seek to confirm their preconceptions and ignore uncomfortable facts?

Anders Andersen

For those thinking evolution may not be a fact because for some topics contradicting explanations exist, please consider the following analogy:

A dead body is found. There is a hole in it's skull, and a bullet inside the brain. Lots of blood everywhere. A gun found 50ft from the body matches the bullet in the brain. Fingerprints on the gun match the victim, but no gunshot residue on his hands. Also, there are 32 stab wounds in the body, but no knife is found.

Now there may be opposing explanations about some topics (who is the victim; who fired the gun; who stabbed; what killed the victim, the bullet or the stabbing; why was he killed; etc) but regardless of those contradicting explanations, the known facts remain solid, and we can think of only one logical explanation for these facts: this guy was (99.99% certain) killed.

And the contradicting explanations or unknowns might be resolved when more evidence is uncovered.

With evolution, it's similar: evolution is a fact. Some topics are not clearly understood (yet), but the facts remain. And the only logical explanation to all known facts found by geologists, biologists etc is evolution.

It's not that someone made up a story and now we try to find evidence for it; someone(s) tried to explain the facts we already knew. And the explanation (murder/evolution) neatly fits the known facts.

And when new facts come to light, they either confirm the current explanation, or the explanation is updated to be in line with all the facts.

17

Science Alert Quiz

by cofty in

take the test fellow hominids.... i got 7/7.

Anders Andersen

7/7

However, I noticed that the answer to most (maybe all) of the questions was 'false'.

I'll take that as a unrefutable sign from God that the theory of evolution is also false.

:-p

133

What are the biggest holes in evolution?

by shadow in

how honest are the proponents of evolution?

idk but curious to see what type of response there is on a topic like this or does their study only seek to confirm their preconceptions and ignore uncomfortable facts?

Anders Andersen

@Cold Steel

The next reply is not to mock you or make you an atheist. I just want to make you think about your reasoning. So don't feel obliged to respond, but please answer those questions for yourself.

1) It seems predicated on the assumption that there is no God, or intelligent designer.

This is completely not true. Evolution does not rule out God. Most Christian churches accept evolution, so it must be compatible?

In fact, almost all of the early work done that lead to our current understanding of evolution was done by religious persons. And that continues today.

Anyway, the theory of evolution explains how all life evolved, but science can never prove (nor will they try) that God did or did not start or guide this process. It should be noted however that everything we understand so far does not need divine action to be explained.

2) The idea that simple organisms can mutate into increasingly complex ones. I'd like to see some evidence this is possible. To think 1-cell organisms can mutate, without a great deal of outside help, into modern humans over a long period of time, is difficult for me to accept.

Is it much easier to accept that an omniscient, omnipotent invisible being always existed or came to existence without cause?

Is the level of evidence you require to accept evolution equal to the level of evidence you require before accepting the existence of God? (Note: Bible contains claims about God, not evidence)

3) That life and intelligence can evolve from a spontaneous action.

You mean life and intelligence...as in...a living and intelligent God?

If evolution can be shown to be consistent with theism, I might be willing to accept it.

Are you saying that you are willing to reject evidence if it doesn't fit in with your current ideas?

Or are you saying you do see (know) much evidence for evolution.

Regardless, as stated before, evolution says nothing about the (non)existence of God. Evolution and God are totally compatible if you so wish.

However, evolution and a literal explanation of the Biblical creation story are not compatible.

And for that subject one could wonder:

Do I accept the creation claims of a Bronze Age tribe chief, for which no evidence exists (but evidence against it does)?
Or do I accept the evolution claims by thousands of people who studied that subject for years, and for which mountains of evidence exists, that can be researched by everyone who wishes to do so?

34

JW's Funerals, Forget About The Person! Let's Preach.

by new boy in

jw
friends

god forbid you would talk about the dead person at his funeral.

so what do most people get after living 70-80 years?.

a 5-10 minutes eulogy.

Anders Andersen

Outlaw made me lol 2x again!

Must be the beer :-p