Posts by Abaddon

From what I have read I think she falls into the Van Morrison catagory, someone who has had exposure to Witnesses but has never really shown the repugnance for the cult one might expect and seems to foster some silly nostalga for the bothers and sisters.

64

OK

by Andy C in

jw
friends

you believe in god or not?

why?

Abaddon

Okay, fair point about the rainbows. I have no rational explanation other than chance and synchronicity (which are actually quite satisfactory explanations).

I can't believe in a personal deity on such slender evidence, nor do I really think a personal deity will faff around with rain and sunlight to catch my attention as there are demonstrably more important things around that require its attention, and although one can argue god is so (in the words of Python) so tremendously BIG it could do many things at once, the fact is it doesn't, at least not on a scale which commands belief in me. And if god WAS so tremendously big then why would it care (although one can get all ineffable in answering this and give the appearance of an answer when there is not one) about my attention?

I still say it was more like the Universe laughing at me than anything else, so I guess I am an atheist with pantheistic tendancies.

Thou art god.

142

Study Detects Recent Instance of Human Evolution

by zagor in

jw
friends

study detects recent instance of human evolution by nicholas wadea surprisingly recent instance of human evolution has been detected among the peoples of east africa.

it is the ability to digest milk in adulthood, conferred by genetic changes that occurred as recently as 3,000 years ago, a team of geneticists has found.. the finding is a striking example of a cultural practice the raising of dairy cattle feeding back into the human genome.

it also seems to be one of the first instances of convergent human evolution to be documented at the genetic level.

Abaddon

Apostate Kate

Yes I do. I did not demand evidence but He gave it anyway.

Well Kate, as sneering about stuff you know nothing about is clearly what passes as well informed in front of your keyboard I doubt very much you would believe in a person of a different faith who also claimed their god had given them evidence of its existence, nor be able to demonstrate any difference between your claims about your imaginary friend and theirs.

This has been fun but I am done here.

What on Earth gave you the impression you had started here? To even start off discussing this subject you would have to have an open mind and some knowledge of the topic. You have neither.

I find it interesting that I have been called names, told I was ignorant and all from people who I doubt have put much more research into their beliefs that I have except save maybe Leolai.

Why do you find it neccesary to blame other people for the reception your ill-informed arrogance receives?

All I said is I don't accept this theory as proof of the evolution of any organism into a higher more complex life form because I have never seen proof of this.

You don't know jack-poo about the subject, so what you have or haven't seen is of no relevence.

The fact remains that with all this supposed evidence, it is not enough to name it the "Law" of evolution.

This would men something if you could now provide the law of god. No, not god's law, the law of god, a clear and supportable explanation for the imaginary friend you say proved its existence to you.

A bacteruim can be effected by the environment to survive, all life wants to survive, but it will never grow a central nervous system. It will adapt to its surroundings, not grow a brain, it is bacteria and has been bacteria since God created it.

Missing links are still missing.

If you had read/understood what I wrote about ring species you would understand that 'missing links' are largely much ado about nothing, as transitions are so gradual and fossilisation so rare that a discontinuity of evidence is to be expected. But as you know nothing about the subject you have no comment on the massive coincidence that occured in evolutionary sceince in the past few years.

You know all these trees showing what decended from what that were made using claudistics (the similarity of bones)? Well, somehow these (according to you) imaginary family trees match the genetic evidence we now have the technology to analyse in the vast number of cases; the animals that were said to be related due to their bone struture are almost always proven to be related genetically.

Although you have nothing to say about this due to your willful ignorance (i.e., you're too complacent to pick up a book, not too stupid, that's a different thing) you shouldn't take your silence on this remarkable coincidence personally, as even those rare birds, Creationists and IDots with some degree of knowledge about evolution, have little to say about it either.

Abadon if you have a new gene sequence doesn't that mean you also have an old gene sequence?

Yes and no - but the point is your claim was wrong, and that despite this your beliefs do not change.

In mapping the two genetic diseases in my ancestors, there is no evidence that we developed new information that caused us to be more highly evolved and disease resistant. The mutation happened and has been passed along since before the Vikings were raping and pilaging.

Who said there is ("evidence that we developed new information that caused us to be more highly evolved and disease resistant") in your case? In someone with sickle cell anemia in the land of their ancestors a genetic disease DOES make them more disease resistent. Many other genetic diseases without any know benefit persist because the number of people carrying them is low and therefore they remain heterogous in the vast number of instances, only becomeing chronic or lethal on the rare occasions two carriers get it on and have homogous offspring.

Adam and Eve (scientists named) have been mapped all the way back to Africa. Again, show me any scientific evidence that shows a living human can pop up out of no where.

There isn't, but nor has anyone said there is. Why do you persist in dishonestly or ignorantly making false claims about evolution? It's like me saying I don't believe in Jesus because of the way he treated chickens.

I understand the theory completly, and it makes no sense to me.

You do NOT understand the theory completely, as every time you say anything about it you show you would be totally incapacble of passing the most elementary examination on the subject.

So Eve popped up, a gigantic mutation from an ape and Adam did at the same time, just popped up and the human race was here.

More lies or ignorance; why? Why is this it SO important to argue for a primative god who makes the Universe like a potter rather than (say) an elegant intelligence that can set the dice rolling and have what it wants eventually appear because of the way they set things rolling?

If this works for you fine! It doesn't for me. I have no desire to defend my position on this, nor am I asking anybody here to defend theirs.

Yeah, right. For someone who has no desire to defend their position you sure work hard at it (effort and results are however two different things).

::gone and not looking at this thread again::

In my experience anyone so devoted to 'forcing' their opinion and ignorance on others is very unlikely not to read the responces to their posts. It very obviously isn't about the evidence it is very obviously about you, you'll read this alright...

142

Study Detects Recent Instance of Human Evolution

by zagor in

jw
friends

study detects recent instance of human evolution by nicholas wadea surprisingly recent instance of human evolution has been detected among the peoples of east africa.

it is the ability to digest milk in adulthood, conferred by genetic changes that occurred as recently as 3,000 years ago, a team of geneticists has found.. the finding is a striking example of a cultural practice the raising of dairy cattle feeding back into the human genome.

it also seems to be one of the first instances of convergent human evolution to be documented at the genetic level.

Abaddon

Apostate Kate

Yes I do. I did not demand evidence but He gave it anyway.

Well Kate, as sneering about stuff you know nothing about is clearly what passes as well informed in front of your keyboard I doubt very much you would believe in a person of a different faith who also claimed their god had given them evidence of its existence, nor be able to demonstrate any difference between your claims about your imaginary friend and theirs.

This has been fun but I am done here.

What on Earth gave you the impression you had started here? To even start off discussing this subject you would have to have an open mind and some knowledge of the topic. You have neither.

I find it interesting that I have been called names, told I was ignorant and all from people who I doubt have put much more research into their beliefs that I have except save maybe Leolai.

Why do you find it neccesary to blame other people for the reception your ill-informed arrogance receives?

All I said is I don't accept this theory as proof of the evolution of any organism into a higher more complex life form because I have never seen proof of this.

You don't know jack-poo about the subject, so what you have or haven't seen is of no relevence.

The fact remains that with all this supposed evidence, it is not enough to name it the "Law" of evolution.

This would men something if you could now provide the law of god. No, not god's law, the law of god, a clear and supportable explanation for the imaginary friend you say proved its existence to you.

A bacteruim can be effected by the environment to survive, all life wants to survive, but it will never grow a central nervous system. It will adapt to its surroundings, not grow a brain, it is bacteria and has been bacteria since God created it.

Missing links are still missing.

If you had read/understood what I wrote about ring species you would understand that 'missing links' are largely much ado about nothing, as transitions are so gradual and fossilisation so rare that a discontinuity of evidence is to be expected. But as you know nothing about the subject you have no comment on the massive coincidence that occured in evolutionary sceince in the past few years.

You know all these trees showing what decended from what that were made using claudistics (the similarity of bones)? Well, somehow these (according to you) imaginary family trees match the genetic evidence we now have the technology to analyse in the vast number of cases; the animals that were said to be related due to their bone struture are almost always proven to be related genetically.

Although you have nothing to say about this due to your willful ignorance (i.e., you're too complacent to pick up a book, not too stupid, that's a different thing) you shouldn't take your silence on this remarkable coincidence personally, as even those rare birds, Creationists and IDots with some degree of knowledge about evolution, have little to say about it either.

Abadon if you have a new gene sequence doesn't that mean you also have an old gene sequence?

Yes and no - but the point is your claim was wrong, and that despite this your beliefs do not change.

In mapping the two genetic diseases in my ancestors, there is no evidence that we developed new information that caused us to be more highly evolved and disease resistant. The mutation happened and has been passed along since before the Vikings were raping and pilaging.

Who said there is ("evidence that we developed new information that caused us to be more highly evolved and disease resistant") in your case? In someone with sickle cell anemia in the land of their ancestors a genetic disease DOES make them more disease resistent. Many other genetic diseases without any know benefit persist because the number of people carrying them is low and therefore they remain heterogous in the vast number of instances, only becomeing chronic or lethal on the rare occasions two carriers get it on and have homogous offspring.

Adam and Eve (scientists named) have been mapped all the way back to Africa. Again, show me any scientific evidence that shows a living human can pop up out of no where.

There isn't, but nor has anyone said there is. Why do you persist in dishonestly or ignorantly making false claims about evolution? It's like me saying I don't believe in Jesus because of the way he treated chickens.

I understand the theory completly, and it makes no sense to me.

You do NOT understand the theory completely, as every time you say anything about it you show you would be totally incapacble of passing the most elementary examination on the subject.

So Eve popped up, a gigantic mutation from an ape and Adam did at the same time, just popped up and the human race was here.

More lies or ignorance; why? Why is this it SO important to argue for a primative god who makes the Universe like a potter rather than (say) an elegant intelligence that can set the dice rolling and have what it wants eventually appear because of the way they set things rolling?

If this works for you fine! It doesn't for me. I have no desire to defend my position on this, nor am I asking anybody here to defend theirs.

Yeah, right. For someone who has no desire to defend their position you sure work hard at it (effort and results are however two different things).

::gone and not looking at this thread again::

In my experience anyone so devoted to 'forcing' their opinion and ignorance on others is very unlikely not to read the responces to their posts. It very obviously isn't about the evidence it is very obviously about you, you'll read this alright...

64

OK

by Andy C in

jw
friends

you believe in god or not?

why?

Abaddon

Pascall's Wager ("If I don't believe in god and I am wrong I will suffer negative concequences, so I may as well believe in god as I won't know if I am wong, and if I am right I will be okay with him") is a coward's life, and presumes god can be taken in by transactional belief (you scratch my back I'll worship yours).

Bible quotations are all very well, but if those were actually writen by people who knew someone who was the son of god, there is no proof of it, and as other bits of the Bible are WAY out, to decide a random scripture invites belief says a lot about how a person decides what is factual, and what is possible - although many claim to have spoken to god in some way or have had god revealed to them, which would seem to be quite convining.

Many people. Many people of many different religions, many exclusive to other religions with belief only they are right. So what does that mean, really? Lots of gods? One bunch of people just happen to be unprovably right and the rest wrong - it's not like a Christian can prove in a court of law their beliefs are 'righterer' than a Buhhdist or vica-versa. Or every one is wrong?

Theism is unsupportable, deism a nice way of breaking the fall to seeing 'god' as at best a pantheistic metaphor of how wonderful everything is, which is a fact most atheists would agree with.

This is it. To presume otherwise is as supportable as a belief in fairies or explosives demolishing the WTC. Personal revelation is obviously convincing to the individual, but that doesn't mean it isn't just your head #ucking with you

Everyone is perfectly entitled to their beliefs, obviously. But is someone is nice only because of god it doen't make them sound either nice or trustworthy. What many religionists need to realise is they are nice ANYWAY, and know perfectly well how to live decently without a rule book or threats.

If there is a god that is probably the only way to please him.

199

Otherwise Engaged...

by LittleToe in

just a little breaking news:.

after several years of a great friendship with diane (previously posted as xena) things have started to really come together recently and i've succumbed to making an honest woman of her (or at least as honest as it's possible to make her.

last night (xmas day) i popped the question and she agreed to marry me (i wonder if she knows what she's let herself in for!!!)..

Abaddon

Ross!! Diane!!

I'm so happy for you both... and I know Kate will be too when she hears the news.

It really couldn't happen to a nicer guy... I've been away from a PC for a few days so didn't see this until just now...

142

Study Detects Recent Instance of Human Evolution

by zagor in

jw
friends

study detects recent instance of human evolution by nicholas wadea surprisingly recent instance of human evolution has been detected among the peoples of east africa.

it is the ability to digest milk in adulthood, conferred by genetic changes that occurred as recently as 3,000 years ago, a team of geneticists has found.. the finding is a striking example of a cultural practice the raising of dairy cattle feeding back into the human genome.

it also seems to be one of the first instances of convergent human evolution to be documented at the genetic level.

Abaddon

If we were talking about building bridges intead of evolution, I think we would see one side of the debate ignorant of the definitions of, or coining new definitons for terms like stress and strain. They would also refuse to believe that the theory and practice of building bridges has slowly changed due to the scarsity of transtional forms, but would insist that each type of bridge was a seperate unique water-crossing concept uniquely created.

It ALWAYS happens like this; one side either through what they say and how they say it, or through admission of the fact, display they typically have not really studied evolution and do not have a scientific background or an adequate comprehension of the subject.

These same people still think that 'cause THEY don't understand it, it can't be true. They naturally gravitate towards people who make them feel that their (uninformed) opinion is a viable one... and these people they use to support their arguement will typically have the same issues with comprehension of the subject as them, either having predetermined the answer illogically (so logical will not change their opinion) or having no real specialisation in the subject.

Despite their willingness to use amateurs, minority opinions, and people operating outside of their scientific specialism to support their disbelief in evolution such people show no confidence in the services of similarly unqualified doctors, dentists, or even plumbers...

... I've always found that funny... they go to experts for their health but seek opinionated iconoclasts for the bits of science they don't get/like.

Frank

You seem to ignore or not to understand the two cases;

1/ Where milk from dometicated animals is used.
2/ Where it is not used.

In case 2/ nothing changes. there is no positive or negative selection of any genetic variation that occirs that allows lactase to be produced in adulthood. Any such variation is removed in time.

In case 1/ those with the variation would carry on using milk in adulthood; they would not start feeling ill when they drank milk so would have no reason to stop using it. Those without the variation would stop drinking milk when lactase prodution fell to the point where dairy consumption made them ill. Those with the variation would have a useful additonal source of sustenance; if they had more children than those without the variation, in time the extra children (most of whom would have the variation) would spread through the population simply by those with it outbreeding those without.

Imagine instead of lactose tolerance people without green eyes could only have half the children of those with green eyes; green eyes would spread through the population very quickly.

To use a false example like poisonous mushrooms gets your point nowhere. Milk is never poisonous; it can and is consumed by (ignoring dairy allergy which is a different thing all together) humans at first with no ill effect.

This changes in those without lactose tolerance.

Poisonous mushrooms on the other hand are NEVER a part of a human's diet as they are..., POISONOUS!!!

Likewise better nutrition leading to larger people has nothing to do with genetic change.

Apostate Kate

If you saw someone who didn't know much about Leonardo Da Vinchi declaring 99% of experts wrong, and saw that they didn't even properly understand the terms used in the discussion, you'd think they were hasty or arrogant in reaching their conculsion unless they could show definatively the 1% are right. Especially as it became apparent they hadn't studied the subject to any depth.

Please bear in mind that the FACT (which you admit) you do not know much about evolution is leading you into a situation where with incomplete knowledge you declare 99% of experts are wrong, and you have done nothing to make someone who knows about evolution think that the 1% are right. If this means you get treated a little incredulously, it's your own doing, don't make other people responsible for the recepetion your attitude generates.

Every species has DNA code that is as if written in stone.

FALSE. Please, read up on the subject.

Adaptations can take place but there is not nor ever has been any evidence that my chihuahua could ever adapt into an entire other species.

It already has. If humans disappeared tomorrow and there were environments where chihuahuas could survive in the wild, they would (in company with other toy breeds in the area) create a different gene pool to 'proper' size dogs. There would be no interbreeding with larger dogs due to mechanical issues based on the impossbility of fertilisation. 1,000 years later genetic drift of the two canine gene pools, the chihuapoodyorkies and the general mutts, would probable be so large interbreeding would be difficult even using mechanical intervention.

Mutations show no gain in genetic information. Genetic information can be "activated" for this lactose intolerance, but again, no new genetic material was found.

Look, if you have a gene sequence

GTCGTAAC

And in time it becomes

AAAGTAAC

... you have NEW genetic material, BY DEFINITON, just as if you at one point have the number 1234567 and later have the number 8884567 you have a NEW number.

I'm not a higly intelligent person but I stand behind the Second Law of Thermodyanics and Entropy.

No, you choose to accept the assurances of a minority who insist that this law precludes evolution because that is the opinion you want backed up. You ignore any decent physics student could show you the application of the 2nd law to evolution by cynics is a false one

From what I've read the fossel record shows periods of teeming life with complete die-offs and then teeming life again. That also discounts a slow billions year evolution.

Why say 'from what I've read', when it's obvious that this is at the least not enough? Do you know how rare a process fossilisation is? In additon to the above being regurgitated pap from some website or book that supports your opinion (we can see how you favour this over information that is commonly accepted by experts as reliable), you seem to have a charming misconception over what evidence there SHOULD be.

Show me proof where DNA code received additional information out of nowhere.

It doesn't get it from nowhere. This statement alone (akin to someone saying Leonardo Da Vinchi invented the colour green) marks your cards as opinionated but uninformed.

Where is the proof that ANY life form is evolving into a more complex life form.

In the fossil record; this is a massive bank of evidence of life forms evolving from one form into more complex ones. You do not seem aware that evolution is;

1/ The word used to describe the development of organsims as preserved in the fossil recod.
2/ The theory of how this change takes place.

By saying 1/ does not exist you risk placing yourself out there amongst the people who say the Earth is 10,000 years old...

Well it should be doncha think! If evolution has so much evidence that it is a fact, then we should SEE the mechanics of it in everyday life wouldn't we?

We do. Lactose tolerance and sickle cell anemia are two such examples. Of course, you are swallowing, hook line and sinker the false argument put forward by cynics. They make it sound like the failure of new forms of life to pop up every minute indicates evolution is false, when no one says new forms of life pop up every minute; the time scale is far far larger... of course, this ignores bacteria, which evolve like crazy and acquire new (for them) gemetic information all the time. But it does happen; a new species of plant (arrisng from a non-backbreeding self-fertile hyprid) was ntoiced in a train station car park, for example.

Do some research on ring species to try and understand why transitions are normally so hard to 'see'. The Lesser black-backed gull and the Herring gull are one such example... an ancestor species spread one way round the world... by the time it arrived from the West at the point the ancestor species had moved Eastward, the Western members of the species no longer bred with those in the original locale... yet at any point in its range you can take gulls from comparatively close breeding zones and they will interbreed. Two species with no visable transition.

Until there is scientific proof that a single celled organism can evolve into a more complex organism I will remain an unbeliever in evolution. If this is the means that all life came from, there must be evidence. There have been so many errors in scientific theory's in the history of science that it is ignorant to me to accept as fact an unproven theory.

The biggest thing you ignore is that evolution cynics do not change their opinion of origins as new evidence arrises; they are stuck in a time wharp where their hypothesis is exactly the same as it was, with no new evidence for it, as it was 10,000 years ago.

If REAL evidence was found tomorrow that disproved evolution it would be discarded as a theory by any reputable scientist.

18

When You got Demons in your Pants...

by OUTLAW in

jw
friends

when you got demons in your pants,you can do the demon dance!...

Abaddon

alt

Okay, who's been feeding my pot plants Polonium again? How the hell am I gonna smoke that?

60

I thought I was alone

by elinor in

i just could not believe it when i stumbled across this forum recently.

i was actually doing research for my dad who wanted to see the world's viewpoint of the failed 1975 prophecy.

he came into the truth less than three years ago and though my mom has been a witness since she was a teenager she never spoke of that particular time period to him.

Abaddon

Well, I thought I was 'alone' between I guess '93 and '96, and then I found the xJW community online.

I can understand you wanting to fade, it;s what I did as I have kids an ex-wife and an entire family in...

... or I should say I HAD an entire family in, as 'the penny dropped' with some of my nephews and they've recently announced they're not going any longer. They did this on their own (and until recently on their own included not confiding in each other) as although my family don't shun me there's very little contact.

I'm so happy for you; it is hard learning you've been used the way you have, but;

... the best revenge is living well...

... and not fufilling the dire prophecies Dubbies make about people who 'fall away' (never use their terms; 'fall' sounds like a mistake or accident, most people 'walk away' quite deliberately... ).

So try to put your anger and frustration into doing just that, as that's the bet way to show Dubbism up for being the bunch of lies it is. You might have to re-examine your beliefs on loads; friendship, sex, god, evolution, charity, holidays; you might find once you put on your critical thinking hat you'll find religions are all just varying degrees of self-deception and whistful thinking. Sometime in the future you'll find you've (unawres) been thinking of things or acting like a Dubbie and have to kick yourself for it; it's not something you can 'get over' quickly.

But you can live, and live well, hell, live BETTER than you ever did before.

Merry Christmas!!!

But