Posts by Viviane

70

DINOSAURS - What do Jehovah's Witnesses Believe?

by Bloody Hotdogs! in

as part of my deconversion catharsis, i have been building a(nother) website to highlight some of the more ridiculous jw beliefs.

im a looong way from done, but i wanted some early feedback on one article: dinosaurs.

http://www.jwbeliefs.com/dinosaurs/.

Viviane

Here is a video about dinosaurs existing with men.

And it shows the 800 year old Budist temple in Cambodia with a stegasauris carved in stone.

It shows a carving of unknown age and origin that you are interpreting to be a stegosaurus.

70

DINOSAURS - What do Jehovah's Witnesses Believe?

by Bloody Hotdogs! in

as part of my deconversion catharsis, i have been building a(nother) website to highlight some of the more ridiculous jw beliefs.

im a looong way from done, but i wanted some early feedback on one article: dinosaurs.

http://www.jwbeliefs.com/dinosaurs/.

Viviane

The parts that are untestable or unprovable.

Which parts do you think are untestable and unproveable? Be specific as to why.

Any part that does not follow science and the scientific method specifically,

All forms of pseudo science.

Please, be specific. I can't read your mind as to what you think is psuedo science or what parts of science aren't following the scientific method.

What they used to call theoretical.

What does that even mean?

thought the carvig was from an 800 year old Buddist temple.

It may well be.

70

DINOSAURS - What do Jehovah's Witnesses Believe?

by Bloody Hotdogs! in

as part of my deconversion catharsis, i have been building a(nother) website to highlight some of the more ridiculous jw beliefs.

im a looong way from done, but i wanted some early feedback on one article: dinosaurs.

http://www.jwbeliefs.com/dinosaurs/.

Viviane

It looks like a dinosaur. They did not have pictures 800 years ago.

It looks like modern representations of dinosaurs. You've never seen one so you really can't say it looks like a dinosaur. Also, what makes you think that particular carving is 800 years old?

There is a lot of evidence that man existed with dinosaurs.

They did not use the word dinosaur until recently.

They used to be called dragons for one.

In what way is that evidence?

It is very possible that a small part of biology is wrong and parts of all the other unscientific sciences are wrong.

The parts that are unscientific could be wrong and the parts that are scientific and follow the scientific method are right.

Which parts are you suggesting are unscientific and wrong? Be specific as to why.

26

Parousia (again)

by leaving_quietly in

i noticed this during the wt study on sunday.. 1 cor 15:23: "but each one in his own proper order: christ the firstfruits, afterward those who belong to the christ during his presence.

"the greek word for presence is "parousia", which needs no explanation here as to how wtbts views this word versus the rest of the world.. what i noticed was the striking contradiction made just a few verses later.. 1 cor 15:51,52: "look!

i tell you a sacred secret: we will not all fall asleep in death, but we will all be changed, 52 in a moment, in the blink of an eye, during the last trumpet.

Viviane

The sudden "depature" or rapture or 'snaching away" of Christians in not a new teaching. The rapture is taught in the NT and was believed by early Christians:

Try reading what people write. I wrote that the current fundamentalist view of the rapture is a modern invention. Neither of those people you quote (one of them out of context, BTW), says anything like what the modern whacko crazy Fundamentalist Jesus freaks believe.

70

DINOSAURS - What do Jehovah's Witnesses Believe?

by Bloody Hotdogs! in

as part of my deconversion catharsis, i have been building a(nother) website to highlight some of the more ridiculous jw beliefs.

im a looong way from done, but i wanted some early feedback on one article: dinosaurs.

http://www.jwbeliefs.com/dinosaurs/.

Viviane

I am just asking why is there a dinosaur in stone on the temple?

1) How are you confirming it's a dinosaur?

2) If it is, what it more likely, someone who has seen a dinosaur picture put it there for some reason OR all of biology, geology, paleontology, genetics and archeology is wrong?

116

Creationist Should Dismiss Genesis Quickly

by Coded Logic in

chris tann,.

in your earlier post you seemed to be under the impression that genesis and science were somehow compatible .

however, the truth is the two are not reconcilable at all.

Viviane

I already suggested in this thread (a few times) that the creator used himself as material for the universe, either by thinking it up (simulating the universe in his "brain") or reconfiguring his "body" to serve as the universe.

So you're still adding to complexity in either of those scenarios.

but it would explain how the universe could be created without an increase in complexity, or at least a significant one.

It still doesn't do either of those things. Just to be clear, what definition of "complex" are you currently using?

Did you not read the rest of my sentence? "It could be that the formation of a creator according to the laws of a different universe was much more likely than the formation of intelligent life on earth ". Yes, I am suggesting a creator ex nihilo.

Yes, I did, and that's not ex nilho. Not sure what you are getting at, but your premise and conclusion completely contradicted each other.

These superficial objections are very tiresome, as well as predictable. Obviously I don't mean that evolution can "choose" something consciously.

I've obviously no way of knowing that since you didn't know the definition of complex or information.

Are you seriously suggesting that scientists don't personify nature when they write about evolution? If you don't think so, shall I dig up some examples from Dawkins et al. for you to read? If you do think so, do you write to them complaining about their terminology, or am I the sole focal point of your attention for some lucky reason?

I've suggested no such thing at any time. You're arguing with your own wrong notion of your misunderstanding.

And I was clearly not referring to the results of evolution as "done". I was referring to a particular point of view, which is why I said " when its 'creations' are looked at as finished products". People do this all the time when they criticize things like the roundabout nerve in the giraffe's neck or anything else that could have been designed better. They are criticizing the result of a process that had a good reason to happen that way because it developed in logical steps through successive prior organisms.

OK. So... write more clearly next time.

The point I am making, and which risks getting lost in pedantry, is that the concept of a god, when looked at as a finished product, seems complex, but that doesn't mean it couldn't come about through a simple process, step by step, and possibly one that was more likely than the process which produced intelligence on Earth.

A creator or the concept of a creator? I hate to lose you in more pedantry, but you did spend several post repeatedly misuing the words complex and information and in this post misued ex nihlo and attempted to falsley ascribe ridiculous views to me. So, just be more clear. Also, it also possible that a teapot is the core of Jupiter. Both ideas have just as much merit.

116

Creationist Should Dismiss Genesis Quickly

by Coded Logic in

chris tann,.

in your earlier post you seemed to be under the impression that genesis and science were somehow compatible .

however, the truth is the two are not reconcilable at all.

Viviane

Viviane, your logic is indisputable, but I didn't suggest that the complexity of "creator+universe" could be less than just "universe" -- only equal to it

How could a creator have zero complexity yet create something with complexity?

It could be that the formation of a creator

A created creator? A non-first cause?

We can also see lots of examples in nature where evolution chose to do things in a more complicated way than is necessary, when its "creations" are looked at as finished products

Evolution doesn't choose and is never done.

116

Creationist Should Dismiss Genesis Quickly

by Coded Logic in

chris tann,.

in your earlier post you seemed to be under the impression that genesis and science were somehow compatible .

however, the truth is the two are not reconcilable at all.

Viviane

Hypothesizing aside, if a given universe (or any system) has a complexity value of u and a creator has a complexity value of c, adding them together is larger than either indivdual unit, increasing the total complexity. The only way that would decrease complexity is if somehow a creator could have a negative complexity, meaning is has a value of interrelating and connected parts of less than zero.

116

Creationist Should Dismiss Genesis Quickly

by Coded Logic in

chris tann,.

in your earlier post you seemed to be under the impression that genesis and science were somehow compatible .

however, the truth is the two are not reconcilable at all.

Viviane

I am not a scientist

Or particularly educated on science.

and only an armchair cosmologist.

No. No you aren't.

I have come to see, that these people, Krauss, Penrose, Davis, Krauss, Feynman et al seem to be very vague when it comes to the beyond, the before, the void of the future, the cosmos.

Anyone who claims to know more than those you listed (such as yourself) is either a liar or a fool.

I see a world picture trying to incorporate all this, and am stuck with a model where there was always time, a given, part of an unfathonable, eternal 'ueber', or 'Ur" dimension, a void beyond our capacity to mesure, understand.

You pretend to, while claiming to be only a casual observer, to know more than the finest minds ever to study the subject. You are either a liar or a fool. Or both, I suppose. You present your ramblings as fact when in fact they are at best comic book quality science.

As a compulsive worker and deliberate 'out-of-the-box thinker' with tangible patent, $, results

Yeah, that means exactly nothing. Literally, nothing.

When people charactarize what I say with these ideas as a base, as babbel, as rambling, it is, because they must have a better model, they are not trying to see my consistency.

Consistently babbling and rambling in no way lends credence to that babbling or rambling.

116

Creationist Should Dismiss Genesis Quickly

by Coded Logic in

chris tann,.

in your earlier post you seemed to be under the impression that genesis and science were somehow compatible .

however, the truth is the two are not reconcilable at all.

Viviane

It seems that the dictionary definition is simply "having many parts".

It seems that is completely made up to suit your argument. Note that not a single definition listed below, nor any in the context we are discussing, means at all what you are claiming.

adjective adjective: complex ˌkämˈpleks , kəmˈpleks , ˈkämˌpleks / 1. consisting of many different and connected parts. " a complex network of water channels "

synonyms:

compound, composite, multiplex " a complex structure "

adjective

1. composed of many interconnected parts; compound; composite: a complex highway system. 2. characterized by a very complicated or involved arrangement of parts, units, etc.: complex machinery.

The reason why I proposed this alternate definition is that I wanted to encourage you guys to think about the information conveyed by parts.

Wait, you just said that seemed like the dictionary definition, now you are admitting you are making it up!

You can accuse me of making up my own definitions, but I don't believe I'm actually doing that.

You just admitted it. Your attempt to deflect that reality has nothing to do with it.

To restate my assertion one more time using the precise dictionary definition of the word, "A brain does not increase in 'the number of parts it has' when it is thinking about something complex."

It still actually does, your incorrect and made up definition having nothing to do with it, however. I generally agree with you on that count, but I thought I would bring up an alternative viewpoint as a basic philosophical exercise.

Philosophy is understanding why we thing what we do and trying to discover if there is a better way to think. You are starting from the position of trying to re-define words, admitting that's what you are doing and then denying doing that thing.

Understanding words is the first step before you attempt philosophical exercises. Learn to crawl before you try to run a marathon.