Posts by Abaddon

69

Gaps in Fossil Record Disprove Evolution? What about Gaps in Creationism?

by Reluctant Buddha in

missing links disprove a theory???.

what about this one, creationists!!!.

real t-rex .

Abaddon

Spectrum

Woah, first of all, how about responding to;

You = I believe that an Intelligent Creator created us possibly by a process of evolution but certainly not that it was a blind mainly random process.
Me = And if you are describing evolution as "a blind mainly random process", you know nothing about evolution.

Evolution is NOT "a blind mainly random process". 'Us' godless Creationists go "Bwahahahaha!" everytime we hear a goddiditist say this, as it means they a/ don't know a thing about evolution, b/ don't know a thing about evolution, and (repatiton for emphasis) c/ don't know a thing about evolution. Evolution's PROGRESS is so not random. Even if occasional change due to mutation IS random, the process of 'selecting' and preserving change is NOT.

'
My riff about RNA
You = I really don't get your logic here or what it proves. Please explain.

You describe evolution as "a blind mainly random process".

I have describe an experiment you can do in a lab which shows it isn't. In this experiment a 'wild' strain of RNA that normally infects bacteria will, if subjected to 'selection pressure' of an environment, change into an RNA that better suited for that environment (by getting rid of all the RNA coding for how it infects bacteria in the wild).

When you repeat this experiment you get more-or-less the same results; an organism shaped in the wild for bacterial infection can be bred in a lab for 'test tube infection', and each time you do the experiment it will turn out (functionally) the same.

This clearly shows natural selection is NOT a random process.

"Please find me ONE peer-reviewed article on abiogenesis in the past twenty years (if ever) that suggests life evolved in ordinary sea water?"
I don't now how many times evos say life started in the oceans.

Evasion! Answer the question.

Or do you have to use out-dated ideas (expressed in simplified terms at that) about abiogenesis to have a decent argument?

Obviously, coming from an environment where people are kept away from anything remotely resembling decent science, you might have had old, incorrect or non-representative ideas about abiogenesis and evolution fed to you, and don't realise things like you will NOT find ONE peer-reviewed article on abiogenesis in the past twenty years that suggests life evolved in ordinary sea water! Do you even know where current speculation about abiogenesis would place it as happening?

The question is Spectrum, are you open minded enough to accept you are, as far as discussing evolution goes, playing poker with dominos?

There is nothing wrong with your head, I am sure. It's just been filled with nonsense (don't worry, we've all been there and used EXACTLY the same protestations as you). It also has not been filled with enough specific knowledge about evolution to prevent you making misleading statements about what evolution is.

Your choice is simple; make YOUR OWN study** of it, or carry on as you are. It's down to you. Obviously, "we'll" help, unless you're unwilling to do any work yourself and go round in circles, in which case you'll find we've had that stunt pulled on us one time too many by others to let it slide.

I have to ask; why does god have to be as stupid and limited as ID-ots YEC's and OEC's make out? Think of two choices of god;

1/ Science is massively wrong (although all the products you use as a result of scientiifc progress work just fine, and you will have a healther life and extended life-span as a result of science's progress). A Bronze age goat herd used a form of a Hebrew noun that means god had to make things like some god-damn potter, each according to it's kind, even if ALL evidence points to the contrary.

2/ Bronze age goat herds are not the best source of sceintific data. If god made us in any way, he could make us any way he wanted to. Thus if it seems he made us using naturalistic processes, that is how he did it, no matter what the goat herd's choice of noun is. This means god really does play dice with the universe, but can 'call' how they'll fall for 4 billion years simply by 'blowing' on them. Far cleverer than the simplistic potter god ID-ots, YEC's and OEC's blasphemously believe in.

... which do you think is more likely Spectrum?

**You know the debate over who really wrote Shakespeare?

Well, who would be the most relaible person to pass judgement on this, one who had studied Shakespeare and the period, or one who had learned how to make seemingly convincing arguments that to support a preconception that Marlowe or Queen Elisabeth did?

Both might make equally good points to a person not versed in the subject.

But the one who had studied the period and Shakespeare would be able to point out all the ommissions of data and selective presentation required to make the other's argument credible.

Thus by study I mean learning about a subject as a science student would rather than as a Creationist does, i.e., study what the evidence supports, not how to make set-piece "presentations" to support a preconceived idea.

21

Psychics are they real ?

by oldflame in

i was just watching larry king live on cnn about these type of people.

it was said that they are only about 25% accurate.

have you ever had any experience with a psychics or what is your thoughts on these kind of people.

Abaddon

No, they are not demonstrably 'for real', not that that stops some people believing in them.

47

How much written in this Forum can be believed?

by Spectrum in

jw
friends

i want to turn this forum on its head for this thread.

i'm here on this forum to find as many truths as is possible relating to jwism.

i'm not really here to stick the boot in although once in a while my emotions might get the better of me.

Abaddon

Spectrum

I'm here on this forum to find as many truths as is possible relating to JWism. I'm not really here to stick the boot in although once in a while my emotions might get the better of me.
What I'm asking is what are the chances that some of the posts on this site regarding JWs are just slander?
I ask this because some of the posts I read indicate really awful behaviour that I never came across in my 9 years of association with them.

Fair question. Even in retrospect, with hindsight and a totally different perspective to that I used to have, I also hear of things I never observed at a Witness. I am sure there are members of all sorts of religions who hear things about co-religionists they never observe in their communities.

But 'bad things' happen in their religious communities and in communities of JW's. They happen in unreligious communities too, or mixed communities like this one.

Sometime people lie. Catholics Jews JW's and x-JW's. Get over it

You should realise by now that there is not a behaviour of JW's that sets them apart from other religions. They themselves build this belief that they are a people apart - less likely to be bad or criminal than the rest of us. They believe they are more perfect and complete in their love. Of course, other religions can also share this conceit. And they and JW's are wrong.

Generally speaking, it is not a man's beliefs which set him apart, but his actions. And humans of all beliefs and nonbeliefs, theist and atheist alike are generally speaking, if born in the same street to parents of a similar social background and income, no more likely to be a bad person than any comparable person of any other possible un/belief.

Excluding really obvious evil shit like the Thugee cult of 19th Century India, where the actions required of the belief are against any reasonable standard of good.

And that is where the rub is.

Sometimes beliefs make people do actions which are not good. Letting a child die for want of blood because of a sincere belief is not good. Not quite in the same leauge as killing travellers as a sacrifice to Kali, as Thugees did, but still not good. There are beliefs held by other religious groups that can lead to harmful action - not just JW's.

In additon to a faith causing harmful action you have an organisational structure that causes harm. Look at the RC Church and child abuse, the JW's and child abuse. Whether due to heirachal structures (RC) or religious law (JW's 'two witness rule' and 'do not be a stumbling') BOTH those religions are liable to give a greater risk of child abuse continuing unchecked than many others.

It doesn't mean the religion is evil, just that doctine and wanting to appear unbismirched to the world came before children.

So;

JW's are just as likely to do bad things as any comparable person with different beliefs.
Any religion can have beliefs which cause harmful action - not just JW's and blood and RC's and contraception.
Any religion can have an organisational structure that might foster criminal activity - such as child abuse with RC's and JW's.

Therefore, examine each case on its merits Spectrum. I read stuff sometimes which makes me go 'ummmmm...'. Most of the time the internal consistancy and lack of tangible gain in deceit, plus the person's character (as much as can be determined in an online environment) makes me end up deciding it's a true story. Mostly people here tell the truth. It is very often obvious when they don't. I rarely feel someone is lying about any 'big' thing. You must decide for yourself. It's one of the fun bits.

And the ones in between we either have to thank the dear Lord, or Mr. Darwin , or Lord Krishna, or Allah, for this wonderful brain we have to figure out if someone is taking the piss.

I'm here on this forum to find as many truths as is possible relating to JWism.

You must realise that some of those 'truths' will show that the JW's aren't (the truth). The way you phrase this makes me wonder if you really want to accept it's just another religion. Maybe I misread you.

38

Why would a current JW choose to be rude and offensive?

by AlmostAtheist in

jw
friends

i've recently had lengthy pm discussions with a person claiming to be a current jw.

this person has been above the standard level of arrogant for a jw, raising conceit to practically a defining characteristic.

you almost expect that when you're dealing with a member of the "elite".. but he goes beyond it.

Abaddon

Remarkable - well, they must mass produce people like that in Brooklyn, as I have had similar experiences recently in PM.

The anger comes from people knowing they are living a lie (how could they not when we tell 'em and they never disprove a thing we tell 'em?), but being psychologically incapable of dealing with the massive changes acting on this information would require.

This causes huge internal tension; they can't withdraw from debate or admit they are wrong as this undermines what belief they have left (after all, they are knowingly mixing with x-JW's so there has to be some underlying issue).

So their backs get against the wall and they lash-out, get locked into circular debates where the questions they have not answered satisfactorily get more and more numerous, and evasion and anger dominate their discourse. It distracts them from how horrible they feel inside and from how pathetic their beliefs are under scutiny.

35

Regardless what you think of it Evolution has brought us great good

by zagor in

instead of replying to numerous new threads that come up every day about intelligent design vs. evolution ive decided to rather open a new thread.

(go with the flow kind of thing .

personally, im not completely certain how life originated (but neither are many scientist) however, life does change over time and animals and humans alike do adapt to new conditions, which often changes their shape and characteristics.

Abaddon

hooberus

I diasgree that I engase in such tactics,- anyone can check my post history on the these debates to decide for themselves.

LOL, yeah, that would prove it! On top of the proof of the 'historical record' please provide the URL to where you have thus far show Dendrochronology or the commonly accepted chronologies for the Egyptians to be in error. I've asked dozens of times. Don't count you thinking the article by Don Batten disproved it, you've not ever responded to me showing this was another prime example of bad science on AiG.

If you are unable to provide such a URL (we both know you can't), it would seem you have evaded dealing with this insurmountable problem for Creationists. A good example is the latest attempt; your contempt for the intelligence of fellow posters never ceases to amase me.

For a reviewed response to things such as bristlecone pine tree ring chronologies, radiometric issues, etc. see:

Now, here you are clearly trying to give the impression that you are refering me to a peer reviewed article, in response to my criticisms about peer review process or lack thereof. This is not true.

Any peer review of the CD-ROM proceedings copies of the Fifth International Conference on Creationism (2003) failed to comply with the standards normally applied to peer reviewing. You are essentially implying that something written by a Flat Earther and then read by another Flat Earther is peer reviewed.

I find that deceptive.

Also, you typing 'Bristlecone pine' into a serach engine and finding an article doesn't mean the article disproves dendrochronology, as you've shown in the past. Please give me a condensed version of Woodmorappe's argument - I assume you read it before providing it? You did read it hooberus, didn't you?

See what I mean hooberus? Rather than actually dealing with any of the contested facts you use what ever wriggling you can to avoid it. But having read Woodmorappe's article, I am sure you will be able to show me how wrong dendrochronology is. I await with pleasure.

Now it gets funny, in that my long-held suspicion you often don't even have the courtesy to read responses to you is confirmed;

For a response to several of your accustions against AiG see:
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/102274/5.ashx

Errr.... hoobey huney, on the same page I detail how ludicrous and insubstancial your reaction was...

32

Prostitution and Marijuana

by free2beme in

jw
friends

i feel that as a country we waste so much time and money fighting prostitution and marijuana use.

not that i think these things are something everyone should use, but the fact that we make these illegal and yet other things happen that are the same thing, or worse.

for example, in nevada, outside the city limits, it is legal for prostitution.

Abaddon

Hmmm... well, as another resident of the Netherlands I gotta say that the prophecies of doom regarding the decriminalisation of cannabis and legalised prostitution are all false.

We've had decriminalised pot and legal whores here for decades, the sky has not fallen and society has not collapsed. Hell, we've even let gays marry for years and STILL society doesn't collapse! LOL

So all the slippery slope arguments are rubbish and can be disregarded.

On top of this, if a woman or man (who owns their own body) exchanges money for sexaul favours... so what? Provided they are old enough and not coerced by others, fine. Anything else denies fundamental himan rights. Even if it's made illegal, it still happens. As a legal thing there is a framework of protection and checks.

Of course, as the whores, rather than the clients, are the ones who suffer from the higher risks of illegal prostitution, maybe some people (who've already made a judgement about the moral worth of a prostititute) are less bothered than they might otherwise be.

Likewise the use of a 'stimulant' would seem to be entirely within the province of the freedoms an individual is entitled to. Obviously theft, assault, and other crimes would still be crimes. But as it is chiefly illegality that drives the price of drugs up and generates crime to fianance drug taking or between illegal suppliers, the entire vicious circle can be controlled if one creates a framework for the supply of the drug at reasonable rates.

Anyone who argues availbility will lead to the increase of use should realise 1/ there is already availability 2/ every study done shows drug absue to be associated with internal psychological factors rather than mere exposure.

35

Regardless what you think of it Evolution has brought us great good

by zagor in

instead of replying to numerous new threads that come up every day about intelligent design vs. evolution ive decided to rather open a new thread.

(go with the flow kind of thing .

personally, im not completely certain how life originated (but neither are many scientist) however, life does change over time and animals and humans alike do adapt to new conditions, which often changes their shape and characteristics.

Abaddon

hooberus

The Creationism/Evolutionism debate/war is thus really about history.

Absolutely true in some ways.

For example, is the Great Pyramid at Giza proof that Creationist's narrow literalistic interpretation of the Bible is not a good way of determining history? The majority of historians believe so.

Another example; are the bristlecone pines on top of mountains in California proof that Creationist's narrow literalistic interpretation of the Bible is not a good way of determining history? The majority of scientists believe so.

Of course, Creationists ignore the majority of informed opinion is against them - they tend to imply that there is a conspiracy against 'truth' as revealed by the Bible. Their 'scientific' responses are not even credible enough to be published in credible journals - although again this is due to a 'godless' conspiracy, according to the Creationists.

Of course, rather than calmly and intelligently trying to show that the common dates for the construction of the Great Pyramid and older structures are wrong, and that the dendrochrological and radiometric evidence I refer to are wrong using clear unambuguous data that has been peer reviewed, as a respoinse to this I expect;

Waffle and bluster, probably using the word 'godless', or utiltising red herrings straw men or ad hominums, rather than actually dealing with any of the contested facts
An AiG URL - despite having been show AiG's articles are typically unsceintific and can resort to concealing inconvenient facts that makes their claims obviously silly
Nothing

15

HOW TO THINK LIKE A FUNDY

by Reluctant Buddha in

planning a career in online christian fundamentalist apologetics?

how about the exciting world of young-earth creationism?

witnessing to, and debating with, atheists and other hellbound unsaved sinners on the internet can be hard work, so you need to familiarise yourself with the tried and tested methods used by fundies all around the world.

Abaddon

Very fun and quite accurate. Unfortunately those it refers to are not that capable of introspection so it will largely sail straight over their flat little hominid-desceneded heads. If we're lucky we'll get one saying how unfair and untrue it is (and doing so in such a way that validates the points made, LOL).

However, as an official sarcastic bastard I note it is C&P, which is ironic, as this is the chief method of those the article discusses sharing their 'wisdom' with us

69

Gaps in Fossil Record Disprove Evolution? What about Gaps in Creationism?

by Reluctant Buddha in

missing links disprove a theory???.

what about this one, creationists!!!.

real t-rex .

Abaddon

Oooo! Christmas!!!!

I figured out where the gaps were in Creationists ages ago, LOL.

Faithfull Doubter

I also fail to see why a Creationist, and/or Intelligent Designer, can not come to believe in the use of Evolution as a mechanism for creation, unless of course, you are discussing only those strange people that believe the Earth was created in 6 literal days....

Happy to hear you say so.

Creationism does not supply a mechanism, only a maker.

Actually, no. Creationism postulates a creator. It doesn't supply it. That is, one might say, the entire problem. Of course, you can still believe in a Creator, but to say supply seems to imply demonstrates and proves.

Room 215

Nice artwork; but you're mistaken if you think that all proponents of ID -- or even a majority of them -- subscribe to the notion of the Bible's literal inerrancy. Do you really believe that the notion of a vegetarian T-Rex is in the mainstream of ID hypotheses?

You're right, and I think Reluctant Buddha knows this. However, I think he subscribes to the same opinion as me on this one;

If it looks like a duck,
quacks like a duck and
walks like a duck,
it is a duck.

ID is a different colour of duck to Creationism, but at the end of the day, it is still a duck.

I suggest you look at who have spearheaded the ID movement. This will prove the 'genetic' link between Creationism and ID. The 'functional' (cladistic one might say, or morphological) links are all too obvious. Don't be fooled by a Trojan Horse for the religious right.

Creationism (as in YEC and OEC beliefs in direct creation of 'kinds'), as any reasonable person knows, is utter nonsense. As the general level of education rises to the point where such god-dishonouring theories as Creationism lose credibility, unsuprisingly (and completely in line with the laws of natural selection as applied to memes, which I find hilarious). ID evolved to 'take its place'. However both in the lab and in the courthouse it is correctly identified as what it is both functionaly and historically.

Directed theistic evolution (which essentially means scientists are right but somehow god is behind it all albeit using mechanistic means of reaching an intended goal), unlike ID, doesn't require one subscribe to ignorance and falsehood as contained in main ID theories such as irreducable compexity. Of course, it does (as with ID) become recursive, but is far more credible than ID as its lack of insistence upon anything other than that supported by facts relieve it of constantly fighting impossible battles with reality.

Spectrum

However your challenge goes a bit wonky when you start attributing these absurdities to ID. You can attribute them to all religious zealots but not to all IDers which I am one.

Above comments to room 215 apply. ID is re-warmed Creationism that still contains absurd and false doctrines. You can believe god was behind it all - but why shackle yourself to a belief system (such as ID) which ignores the fact its fundamental principles (like ireducable complexity) were shown to be nonsense years ago?

I believe that an Intelligent Creator created us possibly by a process of evolution but certainly not that it was a blind mainly random process.

And if you are describing evolution as "a blind mainly random process", you know nothing about evolution.

Ya know how blind it is? Take RNA that infects bacteria. Stick a small amount in a test tube filled with suitable raw ingredients for RNA duplication. When the population expands to fill the tube, take a sample and place it in a new tube. Repeat. After 74 test tubes a 'wild' RNA very good at infecting bacteria, 3,600 units long will evolve into 'tame' RNA 550 units long that is very good at 'infecting' test tubes.

Each time you repeat the experiement you will get almost the same result (in terms of what the 'tame' RNA is like).

That is how non-random the process is.

If you add in a contaminent of some sort, then the end result will change - the 'tame' RNA will end up resistent to that contaminent.

The problem with that argument is you haven't seen evolution either.

And you've seen intelligent design in process? Of course, you haven't... unlike evolution, as tetrapod points out, which can be observed.

When you show me a single celled organism evolve into a complex multicellular millipede then I'll believe.

Even if the theory of evolution is 100% right, the required proof you specify is impossible due to the shortness of human life and the length of evolutionary processes. Of course, anyone can request a proof that is impossible to provide, for example; show me an intelligent designer intelligently design an organism.

Oh what's that, you can't show me because it happens over millions of years. Oh well, I'll just take it on faith. Oops we can't do that it's not science it's religion.

'Scuse me. Your beliefs are just as flawed in that respect. And your beliefs are not the only beliefs that allow the existence of a god, so please don't make out that the ID/Creationism vs Evolution discussion is about god, as it isn't.

Do you believe it is impossible to show something happened using evidence? You seem to imply only eye witness evidence would be good enough for you, in which case a enjoyable discussion is not likely.

It's all creationism to you. So is evolution. It created the most complex things from a bucket of sea water. Did you know that chemists know that you can't make sustainable sophisticated polymer reactions in sea water? Too much water - sends the reaction scurrying the other way.

Sea water? Please find me ONE peer-reviewed article on abiogenesis in the past twenty years (if ever) that suggests life evolved in ordinary sea water? Creating straw men arguments will just make it look like you don't want to have a proper discussion, or illustrates you have decided a theory you show you know little about is false. For now, let's keep abiogenesis for a rainy day and concentrate on evolution.

hooberus Does that piece of religious propoganda tell people that there were trees growing in California, a day or twos drive from the Grand Canyon, that were TOTALLY unaffected by the Flood (because THERE WASN'T A GLOBAL FLOOD)? Does that book explain how the Egyptians failed to notice their civilisation had been destroyed by the Flood ('cause it wasn't) , or how the Great Pyramid (amongst other ancient buildings) would have had to survived the Flood undamaged if the Flood was indeed global? Does it? Or does it deceieve by concealing information that would make its claims look fanciful? A simple yes or no would suffice.

11

My Sons Christmas Present

by Mystery in

jw
friends

my 16 year old son received a book from his grandfather "messy spirituality".

the back cover says "i guess i'm not a very good christian" i don't pray enough.

i don't read my bible enough.

Abaddon

I can understand your protectiveness and annoyance.

However, I'm glad you didn't but the book! Even the Roman Catholics tended to read books before they ordered them burnt! Review is from Amazon...

If you're a perfect, upstanding, respectable, fully mature Christian, you may not identify with very much in this book. If you're like the other 99.9% of us, this book is a capital-G Godsend. It may be a revelation to some that a person can sincerely love Jesus and be a seeker of God yet continue to display weaknesses, areas of non-discipline, and, let's just say it, sins that would seem incongruous with "true" Christianity. There are many out there that feel like second-class Christians because they feel they don't pray enough, or may occasionally use salty language, or smoke cigarettes, or...fill in the blanks. This is a book not only for those people, but for those who are tempted to sit in judgment over those people.
Mike Yaconelli is former editor of "The Door", probably the only Christian humor magazine around, and is presently a lay pastor of a small church. He sees below the surface mess of people's lives and invites the reader out of a world of self-condemnation and into a land of freedom. Some may be concerned that this book gives people a license to sin. Well, most people sin quite well without a license! When we are honest before God and give up pretending that our lives are neat and tidy, that's when God can take the messes of our lives and redeem them into something beautiful. This is a little book, but it packs a big punch. Highly recommended.