Just Accidental?

[gnostic]

Are we promoting misogyny AND bigotry now.......?

Wow! A double whammy....female AND a JW!

That means you can safely disregard anything I say then......

I was simply informing, TheSecretAntitheist that you are not "he", and I meant no disrespect you being a "woman".

I wasn't saying you are being "indoctrinated" because you are a woman.

You are reading too much in what I wrote that you being a "she"; you are taking me out of context. I am not being misogynist.

You have been "indoctrinated" because of your religion (Jehovah's Witnesses) and because of your position in regards to creationism. That's what I mean by "indoctrination".

My real issue is not so much that you being a Jehovah's Witnesses creationist. My real problem is with YOU, repeatedly lying to us, whenever you write about evolution, or about biology or about science in general.

The lying come from misinformation about evolution. Instead of using actual biology textbooks, you instead resort to creationist propaganda about what evolution isn't about.

Look, Deeje.

I don't lie about anything regarding to science. And I don't lie about what I read in the bible.

I have told you before, that I am not a biologist. But I have read and tried to understand Natural Selection, from Darwin's Origin of Species. But even more importantly, I have read and tried to understand more recent biology textbook, which have updated information that Darwin couldn't possibly know, such as microbiology, molecular biology, DNA and RNA, etc, which were discovered in the following century (20th century).

I don't like any creationist who lie so frequently, regardless if the creationist is a man or woman, and regardless if the creationist is Catholic, Protestant or even non-Christian creationist.

Instead of using scientific evidences to debunk evolution, creationists often resort to using half-truths and lies come from mainly misinformation.

Misinformation is often application for propaganda and PR, where truth are distorted. The distortion and misinformation can be found in the images which you have posted in your replies. These images often contained something that no biologists would consider to be useful, let alone truthful; because you are deliberately misrepresenting what the theory is explaining.

I am quite fed up with those images you have posted up. I am also fed up with your constant claims that there is "no evidence" to evolution, when you are not even looking at the evidence objectively.

If you don't have integrity when posted BS about evolution, then how can I tell you are not giving me BS about creationism or your JW.

 

[Deeje]

I was simply informing, TheSecretAntitheist that you are not "he", and I meant no disrespect you being a "woman".

I wasn't saying you are being "indoctrinated" because you are a woman.

You are reading too much in what I wrote that you being a "she"; you are taking me out of context. I am not being misogynist.

I guess you had better word your replies a little better eh Gnostic?
You do understand what sarcasm is though, don't you?

I think you need to lighten up a little.

You seem to be a little tense.

You have been "indoctrinated" because of your religion (Jehovah's Witnesses) and because of your position in regards to creationism. That's what I mean by "indoctrination".

I chose to become a JW after years of attending church.....tell me who is not indoctrinated? Be they religious people or atheists...all who hold to a belief system are indoctrinated in some way....even you.

My real issue is not so much that you being a Jehovah's Witnesses creationist. My real problem is with YOU, repeatedly lying to us, whenever you write about evolution, or about biology or about science in general.

I am not a creationist. I support ID. Did I not make that clear?

The lying come from misinformation about evolution. Instead of using actual biology textbooks, you instead resort to creationist propaganda about what evolution isn't about.

"Misinformation"? You think I am misinformed? Have you not seen the ramblings of scientists and how they have been shown to be very manipulative in their suggested "interpretation" of the evidence? All the "information" about evolution comes from biased sources....you think anyone is going to challenge the "interpretation" that everyone wants to believe is true? Seriously?

Look, Deeje.

I don't lie about anything regarding to science. And I don't lie about what I read in the bible.

Guess what Gnostic....? I don't lie either....not with regard to science or the Bible. We simply have a different belief systems....neither of us can prove that evolution is true. Neither of us can prove the existence of God.

I have told you before, that I am not a biologist. But I have read and tried to understand Natural Selection, from Darwin's Origin of Species. But even more importantly, I have read and tried to understand more recent biology textbook, which have updated information that Darwin couldn't possibly know, such as microbiology, molecular biology, DNA and RNA, etc, which were discovered in the following century (20th century).

I don't like any creationist who lie so frequently, regardless if the creationist is a man or woman, and regardless if the creationist is Catholic, Protestant or even non-Christian creationist.

Instead of using scientific evidences to debunk evolution, creationists often resort to using half-truths and lies come from mainly misinformation.

What if the misinformation is coming from the scientists? Ever consider that? I don't believe their interpretation of the evidence. They don't believe ours.

Misinformation is often application for propaganda and PR, where truth are distorted. The distortion and misinformation can be found in the images which you have posted in your replies. These images often contained something that no biologists would consider to be useful, let alone truthful; because you are deliberately misrepresenting what the theory is explaining.

Of course the camera lies!

Distortions are everywhere!
None of those critters exhibit deliberate design at all.....much.

It all came about by natural selection.....science's substitute for "God did it".

We can see with our own eyes what scientists want to ignore. You are free to believe them...I cannot.

I am quite fed up with those images you have posted up. I am also fed up with your constant claims that there is "no evidence" to evolution, when you are not even looking at the evidence objectively.

Can I ask if you ever look at the evidence objectively yourself? Or does your own bias cloud your vision? Your accusations can just as easily apply to yourself....

If the images I post make you uncomfortable, you might like to ask yourself why?
The images that science publishes in support of evolution make me cringe, but I know why they have to take artistic license...they don't have anything else.

If you don't have integrity when posted BS about evolution, then how can I tell you are not giving me BS about creationism or your JW.

That is entirely your problem...we all have to find the truth on our own. So if we have to make choices...they had better be informed ones.

All I have is information to share. People can do with it whatever they wish.

 

[gnostic]

I chose to become a JW after years of attending church.....tell me who is not indoctrinated? Be they religious people or atheists...all who hold to a belief system are indoctrinated in some way....even you.

And you think JW are free from indoctrination?

I'd hardly think so.

The JW is infamous as doing the indoctrination, and would resort to bullying members, who disagree with them or with their doctrines.

I don't think the restorationists are any better than the South Baptist creationists, claiming to restoring Christianity back to the path, but it is just as backward as the South Baptists and some other Protestants.

Are the JW any better than the other churches?

Your Watch Tower is no better than the Roman Catholics, just as corrupted. The Watch Tower have a reputation of bullying members to follow their so-called "guideline" and doctrines.

I don't think the JW are any better than some very strict Muslims, when it come to handling people who want to leave JW. They may not kill apostates like some Muslim communities, but are JW any better? They would separate family members, preventing the one leaving or expelled from seeing their families. It is barbaric.

The reported scandals of child molestation may be lower than Catholics, Anglicans and Protestants, but like these sects, the Watch Tower do try to cover it up, when child abuses do happen, interfering with any investigation.

So if I cannot trust Catholics, Anglicans or Protestants in Australia, what make you think I could possibly trust the JW, what they teach or what customs to follow?

 

[gnostic]

What if the misinformation is coming from the scientists? Ever consider that? I don't believe their interpretation of the evidence. They don't believe ours.

Evolution doesn't permit any supernatural phenomena, like Creationism and Intelligent Design. It only explain natural mechanism.

Intelligent Design, especially as advocated by Discovery Institute, is nothing more than Creationism in disguise, where they pretend to advocate science, when the Wedge Document clearly revealed their agenda, to sneak creationism into science classrooms of public schools.

Intelligent Design is not science. Never have been. Just because there are couple of scientists in Discovery Institute, none of them ever presented any verifiable evidences for the existence of this Designer.

And what make you think the ID advocates are not biased? What make you think they are not lying to you?

Neither of us can prove the existence of God.

The lack of evidences are just that, that God don't exist.

Why should I believe in God, when there are no evidences? I am sure you don't believe that Ra, Zeus, Odin, Vishnu are real, because there are no evidences to support their existence, just as your Abrahamic deity, called "Jehovah" or this unnamed Designer, and yet you want to make an exception with Jehovah and Designer.

Isn't that double-standard?

There are no more evidences of this Intelligent Designer than there are for unicorns, pegauses, or cauldron of gold coins on the other side of the rainbow.

There are plenty of evidences to support evolution, but you are simply just unwilling to accept them because of absurd belief in JW and Intelligent Design.

Tell me, Deepe.

How do your precious JW treat any member, who might disagree with the Watch Tower?

What are your view or the view of Watch Tower governing body on people, who accept secular? Don't you view atheists or agnostics like me, possessed by the Devil?

Sorry, but I don't think JW like free-thinkers, especially among their own members.

 

[savagewind]

How do your precious JW treat any member, who might disagree with the Watch Tower?

She seems to say that I am having a tantrum, though I am not aware that I am.
She has called me an apostate and it isn't true. I did leave the Jehovah's Witnesses, but I never dedicated myself to them so how could I be an apostate?

 

[gnostic]

She seems to say that I am having a tantrum, though I am not aware that I am.
She has called me an apostate and it isn't true. I did leave the Jehovah's Witnesses, but I never dedicated myself to them so how could I be an apostate?

What I find funny is that she think JW are not biased, especially when considered all autocratic rules that the Watch Tower demanded their followers adhere to, plainly showed they are biased.

And it is the same with Discovery Institute and their Intelligent Design, are biased, basing claims on no verifiable evidences and shiploads of propaganda and misinformation.

 

[savagewind]

What I find funny is that she think JW are not biased, especially when considered all autocratic rules that the Watch Tower demanded their followers adhere to, plainly showed they are biased.

@Deeje has written on the forum that everyone is indoctrinated somehow. I am sure she was including the Jehovah's Witnesses in "everyone". They do not consider themselves biased because they believe that how they view other people is how God wants them to do it, so if anyone is biased, according to them, it is Jehovah.

 

[savagewind]

I have posted that their scriptures which prove to them God's bias are probably being interpreted wrongly, but they will receive information about God, Jesus and the Bible ONLY from the governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses who have presently confided to the world via a broadcast that they are still "roving about" and are NOT inspired of God.

Shrugs.

At least it is funny!

 

[Guy Threepwood]

"Among the educated".....? I guess I am just one of the great unwashed!

Woe is me!

Oh to bask in the light of your alliteration!

I thought that quite a few pages ago actually.....

Since he repeats the claim in practically every post, I don't think we are ever going to change his mind, on his own self proclaimed intellectual superiority- so we just have to take that as read.
Besides, we all know that when people constantly call others ignorant, it's a sure sign they are brilliant- haven't you noticed that?



Me: "Raup did have a problem with Darwinism, he identified many conflicts between the theory and the scientific evidence he studied. No way around that."

This comment just reveals your ignorance on the subject.

Title of Paleontologist David Raup's paper I quoted...

Conflicts between Darwin and Paleontology


Clearly I am not smart enough to figure out that Raup really meant to call his paper 'No conflicts between Darwinism and Paleontology' but the printers made a typo.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

"Among the educated".....? I guess I am just one of the great unwashed!

Woe is me!

Oh to bask in the light of your alliteration!

I thought that quite a few pages ago actually.....

here's another gem

Sapiens:
you have no idea what Darwinism actually is and what it does (and does not) cover. Here's what wiki says:

"Darwinism is a theory of biological evolution developed by the English naturalist Charles Darwin (1809-1882) and others, stating that all species of organisms arise and develop through the natural selection of small, inherited variations that increase the individual's ability to compete, survive, and reproduce."
You will note the absence of any mention of the "transitional' fossils that you so love to foolishly denigrate.

Darwin:

 

[SkepticThinker]

here's another gem

Sapiens:
you have no idea what Darwinism actually is and what it does (and does not) cover. Here's what wiki says:



Darwin:

I"m gonna have to ask for some context on this one.

I cannot find this quote on page 211 of Darwin's On the Origin of Species.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

here's another gem

Sapiens:
you have no idea what Darwinism actually is and what it does (and does not) cover. Here's what wiki says:

"Darwinism is a theory of biological evolution developed by the English naturalist Charles Darwin (1809-1882) and others, stating that all species of organisms arise and develop through the natural selection of small, inherited variations that increase the individual's ability to compete, survive, and reproduce."
You will note the absence of any mention of the "transitional' fossils that you so love to foolishly denigrate.

Darwin:

Darwinism =! Darwinian evolution. The quote isn't wrong (except the exaggerated property of numberless. A high number to be sure, but not numberless. but I'm fairly sure he was using the term in a poetic way), in that every species alive is a transitional intermediate. And, as importantly, he says that *existed* not was fossilized, since fossilization and discovery is fairly rare.

But anyway, if after years of showing you what I know you're looking for, transitions between specific morphological examples such as land mammal to whale, early primate to man, non-avian dinosaur to bird, et all hasn't convinced you, I'm confident it won't at one more showing. But for anyone else who might be interested:
Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ

 

[Sapiens]

here's another gem

Sapiens:
you have no idea what Darwinism actually is and what it does (and does not) cover. Here's what wiki says:

"Darwinism is a theory of biological evolution developed by the English naturalist Charles Darwin (1809-1882) and others, stating that all species of organisms arise and develop through the natural selection of small, inherited variations that increase the individual's ability to compete, survive, and reproduce."
You will note the absence of any mention of the "transitional' fossils that you so love to foolishly denigrate.

Darwin:

[

Slavin' away in the quote mine again, eh?

The actual quote is:

To sum up, I believe that species come to be tolerably well-defined objects, and do not at any one period present an inextricable chaos of varying and intermediate links: firstly, because new varieties are very slowly formed, for variation is a very slow process, and natural selection can do nothing until favourable variations chance to occur, and until a place in the natural polity of the country can be better filled by some modification of some one or more of its inhabitants. And such new places will depend on slow changes of climate, or on the occasional immigration of new inhabitants, and, probably, in a still more important degree, on some of the old inhabitants becoming slowly modified, with the new forms thus produced and the old ones acting and reacting on each other. So that, in any one region and at any one time, we ought only to see a few species presenting slight modifications of structure in some degree permanent; and this assuredly we do see.

Secondly, areas now continuous must often have existed within the recent period in isolated portions, in which many forms, more especially amongst the classes which unite for each birth and wander much, may have separately been rendered sufficiently distinct to rank as representative species. In this case, intermediate varieties between the several representative species and their common parent, must formerly have existed in each broken portion of the land, but these links will have been supplanted and exterminated during the process of natural selection, so that they will no longer exist in a living state.

Thirdly, when two or more varieties have been formed in different portions of a strictly continuous area, intermediate varieties will, it is probable, at first have been formed in the intermediate zones, but they will generally have had a short duration. For these intermediate varieties will, from reasons already assigned (namely from what we know of the actual distribution of closely allied or representative species, and likewise of acknowledged varieties), exist in the intermediate zones in lesser numbers than the varieties which they tend to connect. From this cause alone the intermediate varieties will be liable to accidental extermination; and during the process of further modification through natural selection, they will almost certainly be beaten and supplanted by the forms which they connect; for these from existing in greater numbers will, in the aggregate, present more variation, and thus be further improved through natural selection and gain further advantages.

Lastly, looking not to any one time, but to all time, if my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking most closely all the species of the same group together, must assuredly have existed; but the very process of natural selection constantly tends, as has been so often remarked, to exterminate the parent forms and the intermediate links. Consequently evidence of their former existence could be found only amongst fossil remains, which are preserved, as we shall in a future chapter attempt to show, in an extremely imperfect and intermittent record.​

Today, we know that though Darwin was right when it comes to the ToE or Darwinism, that is to say "descent with modification," he got some peripheral issues wrong. He wrote: "... I believe that species come to be tolerably well-defined objects, and do not at any one period present an inextricable chaos of varying and intermediate links:"

In point of fact it appears that species are NOT, "tolerably well-defined objects," and DO, "at any one period present an inextricable chaos of varying and intermediate links:"

But your argument against Darwinism is akin to your trying to ague that I did not drive from Ka'u to Kona yesterday because I drove at 45 mph rather than 35 mph, your "evidence" does not relate to your "claim."

As far as ignorance is concerned, she claims to be proud of her ignorance yet then complains when I acknowledge it. Ignorance is just a lack of knowledge or information. You, for example, demonstrated your ignorance of what the ToE is with your recent post. Darwinism, the ToE, does not include every utterance that Darwin ever made, it is simple the concept that new forms of organisms arise through decent with modification that is influenced by Natural Selection.

 

[Sapiens]

"Among the educated".....? I guess I am just one of the great unwashed!

Woe is me!

Oh to bask in the light of your alliteration!

I thought that quite a few pages ago actually.....

You were the one to self-describe and brag about your lack of education. Where you lying about that? Do you want to change your claim now?

 

[Jose Fly]

My real issue is not so much that you being a Jehovah's Witnesses creationist. My real problem is with YOU, repeatedly lying to us, whenever you write about evolution, or about biology or about science in general.

The lying come from misinformation about evolution. Instead of using actual biology textbooks, you instead resort to creationist propaganda about what evolution isn't about.

I've been engaging creationists in these debates for quite a while now, and I can confidently say I've yet to encounter what I would call an "honest creationist". I think it stems from the fact that creationism at its heart an inherently dishonest position to advocate. In order to defend creationism, one has to deny so much observed and documented reality that it becomes impossible to advocate honestly.

Maybe one day.....

 

[Deeje]

And you think JW are free from indoctrination?

I'd hardly think so.

I said everyone who holds to a belief system....indoctrination is conviction that what you believe is true. Are you convinced that what you believe is true? If you are indecisive, then what are you? (James 1:5-8) Where is your faith?

The JW is infamous as doing the indoctrination, and would resort to bullying members, who disagree with them or with their doctrines.

Are the JW any better than the other churches?

Your Watch Tower is no better than the Roman Catholics, just as corrupted. The Watch Tower have a reputation of bullying members to follow their so-called "guideline" and doctrines.

I don't think the JW are any better than some very strict Muslims, when it come to handling people who want to leave JW. They may not kill apostates like some Muslim communities, but are JW any better? They would separate family members, preventing the one leaving or expelled from seeing their families. It is barbaric.

The reported scandals of child molestation may be lower than Catholics, Anglicans and Protestants, but like these sects, the Watch Tower do try to cover it up, when child abuses do happen, interfering with any investigation.

So if I cannot trust Catholics, Anglicans or Protestants in Australia, what make you think I could possibly trust the JW, what they teach or what customs to follow?

You know gnostic....you have just spouted off complete second-hand misinformation, which is what you accuse us of doing.
Some of that is only half truth which is often more damning than the whole truth.
There is no "bullying"....but we will not tolerate willful sinners in our ranks any more than the first century Christians did.

1 Corinthians 5:9-13:
"In my letter I wrote you to stop keeping company with sexually immoral people, 10 not meaning entirely with the sexually immoral people of this world or the greedy people or extortioners or idolaters. Otherwise, you would actually have to get out of the world. 11 But now I am writing you to stop keeping company with anyone called a brother who is sexually immoral or a greedy person or an idolater or a reviler or a drunkard or an extortioner, not even eating with such a man. 12 For what do I have to do with judging those outside? Do you not judge those inside, 13 while God judges those outside? “Remove the wicked person from among yourselves."

We remove them from fellowship.....which means we do not associate with them.

As for family members who want to make trouble in our households?

Matthew 10:34-37:
"Do not think I came to bring peace to the earth; I came to bring, not peace, but a sword. 35 For I came to cause division, with a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. 36 Indeed, a man’s enemies will be those of his own household. 37 Whoever has greater affection for father or mother than for me is not worthy of me; and whoever has greater affection for son or daughter than for me is not worthy of me."

If you have a problem with that, then I suggest you take it up with Jesus. If we have greater affection for our family members than for Christ, then we are not worthy of his sacrifice.

I have to ask if you believe everything you read on the net? How do you know that any of it is true? You are happy to promote one side of a story painted to make JW elders into some kind of spiritual SS. Nothing could be further from the truth.

They are shepherds assigned by God to take care of the flock. Negligent shepherds will be held to account. (Hebrews 13:17) We are told to obey their direction.

If the devil can make the perfect son of God look like a criminal threat to society, what do you think he is going to do with his disciples? Jesus said to expect it. (John 15:18-21)

 

[savagewind]

Quote mining anyone?

Negligent shepherds will be held to account. We are told to obey their direction.

 

[gnostic]

I've been engaging creationists in these debates for quite a while now, and I can confidently say I've yet to encounter what I would call an "honest creationist". I think it stems from the fact that creationism at its heart an inherently dishonest position to advocate. In order to defend creationism, one has to deny so much observed and documented reality that it becomes impossible to advocate honestly.

Maybe one day.....

For me, it has only been 14-15 years or a little more. So perhaps not as long as you have.

I only got around to creationism vs evolution debates, from an earlier forums before joining this one in 2006 (RF).

Before 2000, I was in a 15 years limbo, a "believer" without church and without officially converting.

I nearly join two different churches when I was a teenager, but got into heated argument with pastor or elder in 1985. That argument plus the fact that I was busy with my studies, led me to drop out from all things "Christian", so I had touch the bible in 15 years, hence the limbo.

It was only my re-reading the bible in 2000 that I noticed a lot of contradictions and discrepancies in the bible (in both OT & NT).

Not long after that, I considered myself to be "agnostic".

 

[Jose Fly]

For me, it has only been 14-15 years or a little more. So perhaps not as long as you have.

I only got around to creationism vs evolution debates, from an earlier forums before joining this one in 2006 (RF).

Before 2000, I was in a 15 years limbo, a "believer" without church and without officially converting.

I nearly join two different churches when I was a teenager, but got into heated argument with pastor or elder in 1985. That argument plus the fact that I was busy with my studies, led me to drop out from all things "Christian", so I had touch the bible in 15 years, hence the limbo.

It was only my re-reading the bible in 2000 that I noticed a lot of contradictions and discrepancies in the bible (in both OT & NT).

Not long after that, I considered myself to be "agnostic".

That's pretty close to the number of years I've been doing this (I'm at about 20 years.....yuck). Have you ever encountered what you would call an "honest creationist"? The closest I've come is one or two who, similar to Kurt Wise, are merely upfront and honest about the fact that they employ a dishonest approach to science.

 

[gnostic]

That's pretty close to the number of years I've been doing this (I'm at about 20 years.....yuck). Have you ever encountered what you would call an "honest creationist"?

I would have say no. Not here or other forums that I have joined.