Posts by Abaddon

159

Logically consistent theories of ID exist.

by hooberus in

the following is one theory that comes from the id book the biotic messagehttp://www1.minn.net/~science/contents.htm by walter remine.

"an intelligent designer is necessary for the origin of life from non-life.

" the biotic message page.

Abaddon

hooberus

Okay, I've corrected my sloppy grammar and choice of words of yesterday, provide response to the following;

"If one can conceive and accept a scenario where intelligent designers naturalistically arise one should also accept (if using logic) that others can (with at least equal validity) accept that complexity or the environment for complexity can arise naturalistically."
"If one can conceive and accept a scenario where an intelligent designer has always been there, one should also accept (if using logic) that others can (with at least equal validity) accept complexity or an environment where complexity can arise can always have been there."

n.b.

As the paradigms used by a person who conceives and accepts a scenario where intelligent designers naturalistically arise or can always have been there is different to those used by a person who conceives and accepts a scenario where complexity or an environment where complexity can arise can always have been there, the statements are non-reversible.

As the evidential materialist paradigm hasn't even any indication of the existence of an intelligent designer, it goes against the paradigm to hypothesise one exists as there are adequate hypotheses of lesser complexity explaining complexity and/or the environment where complexity could arise.

69

Have you ever had an encounter with a UFO?

by free2beme in

jw
friends

when i was about 16 years old, a group of us friends would go hiking a lot on the weekend.

we would rough it to some degree, just a sleeping back and sleeping under the stars.

one night, while hiking into a lake in northern california, we all were sleeping in a clearing just out of legal distance from a small mountain lake we liked to fish in.

Abaddon

Okay... three scenarios;

One; FTL (faster than light) travel is possible; in this scenario;

People see super advanced aliens who can travel the vasty depths of interstellar space faster than light, but are incapable of hiding their presence from people barely out of the trees.

This is unlikely; someone who can travel between stars FTL will only be seen when they want to be seen, or don't have access to their super advanced technology, so if FTL travel IS possible;

People see super advanced aliens as a deliberate part of the aliens study of humans
People see super advanced aliens because they have a mechanical problem

Two; FTL travel is NOT possible; in this scenario;

People see aliens whose technology we might even be able to understand

In this scenario;

They spend their lives studying aliens races including our own for the lve of study
They spend their lives grooming alien races to join the peace-loving Galatic Foundation
They are scout ships, and the invasion fleet is coming

Three; people don't see aliens ships

Obviously people who have seen sh1t they can't explain have a good reason to go for one or two above.

But...

Why invade a planet when they can have the same resources from anywhere?
Why be seen when to an advanced techology avoiding being seen would be simple (we have already got prototypes of systems that are invisable to radar; not 'stealthy', invisable)?
Why is the evidence never any good?
Why are the people who claim they've made contact never credible? Wouldn't an alien species wanting to make contact go for Kofi Anan, Stveen Hawkins and Richard Dawkins? Instead of Bubba the pig farmer from Alabama?
How come in the past thirty years the number of people with video cameras has increased by maybe 1000%, and STILL we don't have decent proof.

I know what I think is the case, but I know that 'believers' have tantrums if their beliefs aren't validated, normally along the lines of how closed minded people who want EVIDENCE are, LOL. Yes, they laughed a Galileo. They also laughed at Coco the clown...

People have seen shit in the skies for thousands of years, and they've always seen things which matched their beliefs. DO the research; stuff in the skies is not new, it just changed from religous interprtted stuff to Sci-Fi interpretted stuff; common features of alien sightings can be traced to that feature being shown in a film or magazine, not before. People lie to themselves and to others. Eyewitness evidence is notoriously unreliable.

Add it all together and what you have is much about nothing.

Having said that I ran SETI on my PC for years...

159

Logically consistent theories of ID exist.

by hooberus in

the following is one theory that comes from the id book the biotic messagehttp://www1.minn.net/~science/contents.htm by walter remine.

"an intelligent designer is necessary for the origin of life from non-life.

" the biotic message page.

Abaddon

hooberus

Ignore me all you like, you also ignore the fact ReMine has been shown to have made major errors in his book, yet, you still quote from him, just like you still quote from other sites that have been shown to be in error or have a poor standard of science.

You also ignore that if one can conceive and accept a scenario where an intelligent designers are spontaneously available, or have always been there, one also has to accept (if using logic) that others can (with at least equal validity) accept complexity or the environment for complexity can arrise spontaneously or to always have been there.

But carry on ignoring me, it's funny. Last person who did that was seven years old.

67

Born Gay?

by Sam87 in

jw
friends

hi everyone, just wondering what your thoughts are on people that say they are born gay?

ive heard that this isnt actually possible, and that there is no scientific backing to it, im personaly not gay but i was just wondering what some of you think on this matter, and if you have anything to back it up with, thanks,.

.

Abaddon

Forscher

Nice summary and analysis of material provided previously in links. You miss out the pre-natal (non-genetic influence) the uterine environment has. As with most such complex questions, the real deal probably lies not in any one factor.

I don't agree with the definition of animal studies as problematic. They just show that animals form lasting homosexual pairs, and that some such pairings even produce offspring... which is what we see in human homosexuals... which kind of makes the word 'un-natural' raher inaccurate...

I do agree with "folk will believe what they want".

Certain people will believe gayness is a choice as they believe god said it was bad and therefore it CANNOT be something a person had no control of, as if it was god would not punish someone for doing something they have nop control over.
Certain people resent gayness being made-out to be biological as they feel this somehow changes being gay in an unfavourable fashion.
Others couldn't give a ferk why people are gay.

Qcmbr

The bizarre argument about not being able to choose who you are attracted to is a lie.

Is it now? Okay, say I have 100 gazillion people at gunpoint, and will shot them unless you CHOOSE to be attracted to men. Will you be attracted to men? No, of course not, at most you could pretend. Thus I find your contention "not being able to choose who you are attracted to is a lie" is unproven.

When you get married you make a conscious decision to deny all feelings for others and commit yourself to one person only.

That person is of a gender you are attracted to, or are pretending (so good you can fool yourself) you are attracted to as a result of pressure from societal or familial expectations.

And if you "make a conscious decision to deny all feelings for others", you are kidding yourself; all you can do is decide to "commit yourself to one person only" even if you DO become attracted to others in the future.

It is perfectly possible to close off your feelings or desires - it is a permission of the will.

Ha! This is simplistic - you cannot eliminate the thought, only squash it if it occurs and not act on it. If you are otherwise you have achieved what many people have tried (and failed) to do for normally religious reasons - to eliminate sexual desires. How special... or is this a rose-coloured mirror?

I suspect that almost all 'gay' tendencies as all 'straight' tendencies are a result of a choices we make.

Your opinion is irrelevent no mater how important you might think it is. Facts are what lead this discussion.

Before puberty I was not at all interested in girls/boys (along with the majority of children I would suggest) but that didn't make me gay (or straight), when I hit puberty I went through a very confusing and scary experience where I suddenly had sensations I had no preparation for and didn't quite know what they meant.

I would say the cluenessness you felt on hitting puberty had a lot to do with your upbringing. Did your parents talk about sex, make it obvious sex was a natural part of their life, discuss with you what you might expect as you grew?

It is no surprise to me that many come out of that scenario with a confused sexuality especially in a society that thrusts choice upon the ones who are most confused.

Again, a simplistic analysis. You assume their confusion results from being gay. You ignore the fact the confusion could be about being attracted to the same gender and not being able to accept or act on this attraction without negative concequences. You confuse common-or-garden teenage angst with the trauma a gay teen feels if they are raised in a environement where their being gay will cause them problems.

Now to confront the idea that people say they 'knew' they were gay at a very early age - I say bull - I would suggest that having found themselves having made a gay lifestyle choice they then retrospectively find proof in their past.

Coming from someone whose opinions are formed around their religious beliefs before any reference to reality I find your attitude ludicrous. You believe this, and you believe what you do about human origins, purely due to you being in a cult. Get over it.

Hell if I wanted to be gay I could look back on my childhood and find times when I didn't find women attractive but definately chose to hang out with other boys and could then make the leap

Hanging out is rather different from being ATTRACTED TO. Boys hang with boys and girls with girls as they have common interests and past-times. Boys ferk boy if they are attracted to them, likewise girls ferking girls. Boys and girls who are attracted to each other ferk each other. It really is that simple...

All I ever knew was that sex was some arcane mystic experience that adults had and it was all disgusting - 'you mean my parents do that ewwww!'. During puberty I found out (to a lesser extent!) what all the fuss was about but unfortunately I still feel a bit wigged out by the thought of my parents...OK I'm not going there.

Grow up; you wouldn't be here if your parents didn't do 'it', and if you don't like the fact your parents carried on doing 'it' then you are obsessing about the sex when you should be celebrating the love.

I think it is wrong to discriminate against someone for their lifestyle choice but I do have an issue with arguing its natural (sex is natural but penguins getting the wrong hole does not constitute the right to wear a gimp mask, abuse vegetables nor for men and women to justify their same sex decisions - why do you need a penguin as the excuse?

Gay people don't need excuses; if you are so unbiased why do you feel they need an excuse?

Your characterisation of the ample evidence that homosexual behaviour is part of the natural spectrum of many species' sexual behaviour makes it obvious you've not studied the subject - it is so not 'getting the wrong hole'. If you are so un-biased why the false characterisation? Or is the "I'm unbiased" lip service?

I would have more respect if people who chose to be gay just said so

I would have more respect if people who had religiously predicated opinions just said so

If I was having feelings toward a bloke I'd want to find out why since I know my genetics couldn't be responsible, my body couldn't be responsible (its just not built for men) and so I'd be looking at what was going on in my head that was making me feel that way.

Here you state things that simply are unknown; you cannot state that genetically speaking it is impossible to be attracted towards the same sex or not as there isn't enough evidence. But you seem to feel qualified to state what the vast majority of scientists (and most posters who've bothered quoting facts) do not feel qualfieid to state. Modest!

People don't like to feel they are to blame for their gratification of urges.

Qcmbr, if urges do not result in harm to uninvolved parties, why are they wrong?

If you ignore all else, answer this one...

67

Born Gay?

by Sam87 in

jw
friends

hi everyone, just wondering what your thoughts are on people that say they are born gay?

ive heard that this isnt actually possible, and that there is no scientific backing to it, im personaly not gay but i was just wondering what some of you think on this matter, and if you have anything to back it up with, thanks,.

.

Abaddon

ackack

I do?

Cool...

I think...

67

Born Gay?

by Sam87 in

jw
friends

hi everyone, just wondering what your thoughts are on people that say they are born gay?

ive heard that this isnt actually possible, and that there is no scientific backing to it, im personaly not gay but i was just wondering what some of you think on this matter, and if you have anything to back it up with, thanks,.

.

Abaddon

Sam87

What you believe about the determination of sexual orientation isn't really that relevant unless you can back it up with decent research and evidence. Opinion is one thing, demonstrable fact another.

Homosexuality is common in nature and represents part of the spectrum of normal sexual behaviour observed in the wild.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6066606.stm
http://www.bidstrup.com/sodomy.htm
http://www.amazon.com/gp/explorer/031225377X/2/ref=pd_lpo_ase/104-7435113-9905542?

There is as yet no final agreement WHY homosexuality occurs. There is the genetic argument;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation

If one meta-analyses available research one gets a figure of about 36% as regards the heritability of the behaviour; in other words choice or environment (including pre-natal environment) is twice as strong in determining sexuality than genetic pre-disposition.

There is also a strong possibility that the level of hormones in the womb play a strong role in determining sexuality;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prenatal_hormones_and_sexual_orientation

Additionally it seems that there must be some non-choice factor involved in a sizable number of homosexuals as there are identifiable differences between heterosexual physiology and homosexual physiology

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality#Physiological_differences_in_homosexual_persons

Away from the arena of research, anecdotally we find many homosexuals feel they always were homosexual from when they first had sexual or 'pre-sexual' feelings.

Is it important to you whether homosexuality is choice or not?

I love science, have studied human sexual behaviour, but couldn't give a flying act of copulation whether it is choice or not. I've just had these discussion SO often it's rather easy to trot out the facts.

Homosexual and heterosexual sexual intercourse is, from the ages of consent set by law, sexual activity between two (or more) people who can competently consent to the activity.
Such sexual activity between two or more people does not harm uninvolved parties, whether that sexual activity is homosexual or heterosexual.
Thus even if people were choosing to be gay or straight, it doesn't matter a damn as they do no harm to uninvolved parties by that choice.

Thus, no matter what the conclusion of science is, what's the big deal?

What often gets missed in conversations about homosexual sex is LOVE. Some people get so totally bogged down in genitalia they lose sight of the love; they "can't see the love for the genitals" I suppose.

This is further highlighted by the fact some men think homosexuality is 'wrong' and 'un-natural', but like the idea of two women together, or like the idea of anal sex (with a woman). Not that anal sex necessarily has anything to do with being gay in the mind of someone who knows a bit, but to the above mentioned group it's synonymous.

This is very sad, as to most gay people, just like to most straight people, the person you LOVE is most important in life. In this respect gay and straight are identical.

Even when homosexuals have fought the law and won the right to be gay without threat of legal interference, the fact it is about LOVE is clearly shown by gay marriage being a very important issue to many gay people; they want the rights and protection and RECOGNITION for their relationship, their love, that heterosexuals can get without a second thought.

14

Dishonorable mention

by Norm in

jw
friends

today to my surprise i found my name mentioned on a cesnur site.

it is authored by some john b. brown.

anyone know who this guy is?.

Abaddon

Off the top of my head Brown is head-honcho at Borg Central Media Manipulation Orifice.

He's the spokes-Borg.

135

Chemical weapons being used ... how about it America?

by Simon in

of course, as it's the murdering, war-crime-committing, un-mandate-ignoring, nuclear-non-proliferation-flouting israeli friends of america, they probably won't see it as an issue at all.. funny that ... they were dead keen on going to war over just the hint of this very thing but probably won't even condemn it.. it's about time that sanctions were imposed on israel.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6075408.stm.

.

Abaddon

hillary

I have to admit that you have infinately more patience that I.

LOL... I DO? I must point that out to the next person I rip a new asshole on... LOL

My tendency is to have a fairly simplistic methodology toward these discussion boards that divide a persons argument into one worthy of discussion, or one worthy of at best ad hominem.
Someone might posit the argument that 'all Muslims should be nuked', an argument that I have read in some form or the other on numerous occasions on this Board. This argument is unworthy of serious discussion and warrants, when I can be bothered, only ad hominem, scorn and ridicule.

Oh, I quite agree. It doesn't pay to pander to deliberate ignorance. But it is fun to lampoon and ridicule it.

What is truly amazing, actually more depressing than amazing, is the amount of people who actually expect their ridiculous points of view to even merit serious consideration.

People expressing an opinion that shows profound ignorance about the subject are normally to ignorant about the subject to knw how much they don;t know.

One thing I have learnt about learning stuff is the more you learn the more you realise you still need to learn more.

If you know, say, ten things about evolution, then you will be really unaware of how vast the subject is and might assume one's competence. If you can write a 1,500 word essay on one of a number of topics about evolution which will contain dozens of facts, without having to do too much in the way of research other than looking up refrences for stuff you already know, you will be far more aware of the breadth of the subject and the vast possibilities for igorance about it.

Same applies to geo-politics.

Ross

I'm still waiting for an explanation of the "huge difference" between chemical weapons and weapons that just happen to inflict chemical burns...
Is it like the difference between ad hominem and an attempt to jerk someone to their senses with a well placed jibe?

LOL...

stillajwexelder

I'd say a chemical weapon is a chemical weapon if the damaging effect of the weapon is due to the direct action of chemicals. You can have a chemical weapon that is not a WoMD.

Thing is, most people see accidentally blowing civilians up as bad, but burning them to death as worse. This is why napalm, WP and flame throwers are seen as morally ambivalent even though they are not WoMD. I suppose it is like rape, and rape by a member of your family. The same thing is happening. The 'agent' that DOES the damaging action makes the action worse.

20

Is abortion an unforgivable sin?

by e_louise in

hi all i'm a newbie with a question:.

please ban you tell me if an unbaptized publisher has an abortion is this an unforgivable sin?.

what would happen to the publisher if another jw reports them or they confess since they are not baptized?.

Abaddon

Sam

It's fine for you not to have an abortion, but please don't misrepresent what most people who have abortions actually think or feel.

You obviously feel that a unborn child, no matter how developed (ie.e how many months gone) is the same as you and me.
You obviously feel that somehow there is personality present from conception.
You obviously feel that despite no specific mention of abortion in the Bible (yes, it was known) that god wouldn't like it.

All this is fine. For you.

Others feel that aborting an unborn child BEFORE it is really a person is not wrong.
Others feel that until there is a certain amount of nerve tissue there is no possibility of the unborn child being a person or comparable to a born human or even late-term pregnancy; many many abortions take place before the fetus has a nervous system that is as well developed as a rat.
Other feel that if god saw fit to mention boiling kids in their moths milk and wearing clothes made out of two different materials as being wrong, god would also mention abortion as being wrong if it was in gods mind, and that to condemn others for abortion is to be presumptious before god.

All this is fine. For them.

What is not fine is assuming your opinions and beliefs are valid for everyone. I wouldn't try and make you have an abortion if you were raped, but would fight for the right of a raped woman to have an abortion. I wouldn't try and make you have an abortion if you were 16, poor, and uneducated, but would fight for the right of a woman to have an abortion if they were 16, poor, and uneducated.

Tolerance is the key... and the last thing this person needs now is having MORE people tell her she's bad purely based on their opinion, as she can get that at the Kingdom Hall.

159

Logically consistent theories of ID exist.

by hooberus in

the following is one theory that comes from the id book the biotic messagehttp://www1.minn.net/~science/contents.htm by walter remine.

"an intelligent designer is necessary for the origin of life from non-life.

" the biotic message page.

Abaddon

Almost

Oh, assuredly, yes, I can see what he's trying to do.

Pity in trying to create 'logically consistent theory of ID', all he does is show the tortuous ends one has to go to in constructing such a thing, and the fact that such a thing does not in itself mean anything (as funky pointed out) as logically consistent theories are not facts.

One can come up with a logically consistent theory why Gimli and Legolas did or didn't make the beast with two backs. Doesn't mean either them or the Universe they inhabit is real.

This is either missed by hooberus, or is unimportant to him.

He also manages to behave in a manner INCONSISTENT with his purported beliefs, unless his scriptual citations show otherwise.

Now he realises his 'cunning plan' wasn't all that cunning he's having another go. Rabbie Burns would be very pleased with the chaps persistence.

"An intelligent designer is necessary for the origin of complex machines (composed of interworking componet parts) from non-complexity."
Once again this statement requires:
1.) No infinite regression of designers- since it (similar to earlier ID statement) does not require that potential designers even have an origin at all.
2.) No required self-refutation- since it (similar to the earlier ID statement) does not also require the existence of some complex machine that has an origin from non-complexity without a designer, as it does not require the designer to even have an origin from non-complexity at all.
(Anyone who disagress with the above two points please see the earlier dialogue on the other simpler ID statement).
Furthermore, it should also be noted that the expanded ID statement at the top of this post does not even require the designer himself to also be a complex "machine" at all- thus it additionally does not disallow any potential designer which is not composed of machine type complexity.

Close but no spliff.

This argument only works if you can show that the designer is not a complex machine of "interworking component parts".

As I believe hooberus believe in the Trinity, he's really barking up the wrong bristlecone pine, as I think "interworking component parts" is as good a stab as any at describing 'the mystery of the Trinity'. Of course, as we obviously are calculating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin I have no doubt that we will get into semantics regarding the meaning of 'machine', as no douby hooberus has chosen this as the definiton is normally regarding a device 'mechanical or organic'. However, 'machine' can also be described to describe a group of persons with a common purpose (like "Churchill's war machine", and I don't think he's quite ready to take on Sabellianism or denying the personitude of the component parts of the Trinity.

Thus I see the nature of the postulated designer hooberusactually believes in as conforming to the description 'complex machine'.