Putting the JW Stand on Evolution in Perspective

[Hockeycowboy]

8%. A telling demonstration of the major misinformation indoctrination that goes on within the JW faith, which is no doubt abetted by their lack of higher education. Almost a fifth of their members never graduated from high school, the poorest showing of all the listed denominations.

Then there's this:

"JWs maintain that the Bible is consistent with modern science, except the entire field of evolutionary biology and parts of geology and archaeology, which are wrong because of the influence of Satan, pagan philosophy and depraved Christian clergy."
source​

One has to wonder why Satan picked on the entire field of evolutionary biology and parts of geology and archaeology to mislead those living in the last few 160 years, particularly when one considers its poor showing---only 33% of adults believe humans existed in their present form from the beginning.* One would think he would have picked a more profitable enterprise with which to mislead humans. Of course Satan, pagan philosophy, and a depraved Christian clergy have nothing to do with the dissemination of evolution, the basis of the JW ire, but the simple fact that JWs can't sell their literal reading of the Bible without using them to demonize its enemy, evolution. Evolutionary biology and those fields of science that support it aren't just wrong, but carry the heinous marks of the devil, paganism, and depravity. "Therefore dear JW member, don't even go near evolutionary writings lest ye be pulled away from your Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and fall into lie filled pit of deception."

So, other than the 8% who know better, JWs come away with all the distorted talking points against evolution, but without the ability to back them up. Not that this comes as any surprise, but wouldn't it be nice if someone from the 8% came on board and stood up to the other 92%. However, I'm afraid it won't happen. The JWs are well known for their intolerance of competing ideas being circulated among members.


*source

.

Such inflammatory bile.

http://www.historynet.com/what-we-owe-jehovahs-witnesses.htm

 

[Skwim]

You didn't watch the video either...did you? Its the doctors warning about the dangers of blood transfusions.....not us. Up to you if you want blood.....go for it, but please don't day you weren't warned. OK?

I wasn't aware there was a video. But having watched it, It does appear there are quite a few untoward effects that can arise, most of which, it is suggested, can be reduced by better clinical evaluations and procedures. However, I didn't see any remark that suggested blood transfusions where inherently more harmful than beneficial. In all the remarks the video was careful to qualify the situations under what possible harm could occur. The highest risk, wherein the risks outweighed the benefits was in the critically ill, and certainly not in emergency situations, plus this risk was with allogeneic blood products, not apheresic donations.

.

.

.

 

[oldbadger]

Such inflammatory bile.

http://www.historynet.com/what-we-owe-jehovahs-witnesses.htm

I'm still waiting for the writer of the OP to treat us to a list of his qualifications and present job. To denigrate folks for their academic achievements without explaining their own, as if those folks somehow lose the ability to decide what they believe is cheap, imo.

Discussion? Nah........ no discussion here.....

 

[Skwim]

http://www.historynet.com/what-we-owe-jehovahs-witnesses.htm

So what? Is being unlikely champions of religious freedom suppose to change any of the facts I presented?

.

 

[oldbadger]

I wasn't aware there was a video. But having watched it, It does appear there are quite a few untoward effects that can arise, most of which, it is suggested, can be reduced by better clinical evaluations and procedures. However, I didn't see any remark that suggested blood transfusions where inherently more harmful than beneficial. In all the remarks the video was careful to qualify the situations under which harm could occur. The highest risk, wherein the risks outweighed the benefits was in the critically ill, and certainly not in emergency situations, plus this risk was with allogeneic red blood products, not apheresis donations.

How does a 'so-called' discussion on JW stands on evolution lead to the muck that has been chucked on this thread?

But since the 'blood' argument has popped up yet again, in the UK it has been recognised that blood transfusions are only needed in a small % of cases where they have previously been used, and the sickness and illness passed on by transfusions in so many (that's thousands of) unfortunate cases show that much more careful screening is required for the future.

Which part of that are you missing?

 

[oldbadger]

So what? Is being unlikely champions of religious freedom suppose to change any of the facts I presented?

.

Chucking a mass of dubious 'facts' on to a thread about 'discussing evolution' is a cheap 'all-round' attack, Skwim, and then you moan that JW bravery and steadfastness is irrelevant on this thread.



EDIT:
PS...... I 'm still interested to hear about your qualifications and job, Skwim. As I remember you are/were a tradesman.... electrician, was it? It's just a matter of discovering you have any value on this thread using your own criteria, havinbg trashed the JW average achievement.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

How do bacteria survive without a host?

Why wouldn't they? They've been around longer than hosts have. It's viruses that need hosts, not bacteria.

Jehovah says, the boasting in him is good. Why?

Because He's hypocritical and His ego knows no bounds?

I should have been more specific. I meant bacteria that infect animals and humans - for example, parasites.

Multiple life stages? Tapeworms don't just exist in animals. They have to be "deposited" somewhere as well so they can reach the next stage.

Also, parasites can change hosts.

The gods are all safe

The idea they think that's an option (killing a god) is highly amusing.

I mean, depending on whose mythology you're using, it's definitely possible, just weird to think about.

But since the 'blood' argument has popped up yet again, in the UK it has been recognised that blood transfusions are only needed in a small % of cases where they have previously been used, and the sickness and illness passed on by transfusions in so many (that's thousands of) unfortunate cases show that much more careful screening is required for the future.

That makes it a procedural issue and wouldn't have been a problem had proper procedures been used. I've given blood before to patients. I know what the rules are. Do it right and it's highly unlikely anything will go wrong. It's not like a nurse can just hook up blood and leave for the four hour administration. We have vital sign parameters that can trigger an immediate halt to the procedure and a good flushing with normal saline and benadryl and such things. If there IS a reaction, someone screwed something up somewhere, like not getting the right type or not ensuring the quality of the product.

 

[John53]

Since they all subscribe to Catholic doctrine on those specific issues....yes. She is the mother of many daughters....some of which don't speak to her. But the acorn never falls far from the tree.

So nobody is allowed to disagree with your religion but you're free to say what you want about other religions... I see.

The video is on the Australian Government website.....it's not very long, and very informative. I hope you get a chance to watch it. Especially take note of the cytoscan and see what happens when blood is transfused into a patient who also received saline solution as a volume expander. You will see what happens when the body receives foreign material.....as compared to simple salt solution that is comparable to ordinary sea water.

The video is a media release and has to watched in context with all the information on the website and the summary does a nice job of explaining it all "Blood, still saving lives ... but there are risks. Highlights the benefits and risks of red blood cell transfusions. Relates closely to the Patient Blood Management Guidelines issued by the National Blood Authority, Australia." There are risks with every medical procedure. Bit like saying, Crossing the road still gets you to the other side...but there are risks.

If your so worried about risks you must never hop in a car. That is far riskier than a blood transfusion.

 

[Deeje]

I wasn't aware there was a video. But having watched it, It does appear there are quite a few untoward effects that can arise, most of which, it is suggested, can be reduced by better clinical evaluations and procedures. However, I didn't see any remark that suggested blood transfusions where inherently more harmful than beneficial. In all the remarks the video was careful to qualify the situations under what possible harm could occur. The highest risk, wherein the risks outweighed the benefits was in the critically ill, and certainly not in emergency situations, plus this risk was with allogeneic red blood products, not apheresis donations.

I suggest you watch it again. There are numerous references and a graph. Did you take note of the cytoscan?...or did you see only what you wanted to see?

Most people don't donate their own blood. And other people's blood is seen by the immune system as foreign tissue that has to be dealt with. The body's resources are directed to fighting the foreign tissue and the patient's immunity is lowered, increasing the risk of infection, other complications, and death.

Patients are observed to do better without blood altogether. We have been in emergency situations too and still survived without blood and with a faster recovery time. Doctors in this field are themselves sounding the warning....I think we should listen.

 

[Deeje]

So nobody is allowed to disagree with your religion but you're free to say what you want about other religions... I see.

If that is what you think I said then no, you don't see at all. I belong to a religion that is one of the most "disagreed" with in existence.....but then, so did Jesus. Copping flack is what we are used to.
Is an atheist going to defend Roman Catholicism now?

The video is a media release and has to watched in context with all the information on the website and the summary does a nice job of explaining it all "Blood, still saving lives ... but there are risks. Highlights the benefits and risks of red blood cell transfusions. Relates closely to the Patient Blood Management Guidelines issued by the National Blood Authority, Australia." There are risks with every medical procedure. Bit like saying, Crossing the road still gets you to the other side...but there are risks.

Sorry, but your analogy is not even close....You do understand that there is pressure from the industry itself...? Blood is a multi-million dollar business.....so they are never going to allow doctors to reveal how many patients actually die because they have been given blood.....how would they know? Apparently that comes under the category of "we did everything we could".....who is going to argue with that? We trust that doctors know what they are doing......don't we? .....but if they are sold a bill of goods themselves by those who train them.....should we?

The medical profession used to be an honorable one, but today all too often we see greed as its prime mover. No cures for anything....just expensive tests and ongoing expensive treatments that will have to be taken for the rest of our miserable lives....but we have to see our doctor regularly to keep prescribing the same medication, year in year out. The perpetual customer base seen each week at the pharmacy with a basket full of pills. Never feeling any better but talked into taking lots of medication, much of which comes with awful side effects. The system is broken, like everything else in this world exploited by greed.

If your so worried about risks you must never hop in a car. That is far riskier than a blood transfusion.

Ever filled out a hospital admission form? If you have, then you might wonder why they have to ask the question..."Have you EVER had a blood transfusion?" There is way more risk than they are willing to tell you.

 

[ecco]

Look up the words "morbidity" and "mortality" in a dictionary......are these words something you want attached to ANY medical procedure that is offered to you? It is stated on the video by the doctors themselves that no other medical procedure carries a greater risk for bad outcomes and death than blood transfusions do.

This from https://www.conformis.com/surgeon-resource-center/resource/the-true-cost-of-a-blood-transfusion/

Did you bother to look up who Conformis is? Did you think to question the reasons for their comments?

Or were you told by JW uppers that there was a video that was negative to blood transfusions and could be used to further the JW agenda (as long as no one questioned the source).

That kind of ploy works well when it is directed at people like JWs who don't question anything that their leadership throws at them.

It doesn't work at all when directed toward skeptics.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Sorry, but your analogy is not even close....You do understand that there is pressure from the industry itself...? Blood is a multi-million dollar business.....so they are never going to allow doctors to reveal how many patients actually die because they have been given blood.....how would they know? Apparently that comes under the category of "we did everything we could".....who is going to argue with that? We trust that doctors know what they are doing......don't we? .....but if they are sold a bill of goods themselves by those who train them.....should we?

The medical profession used to be an honorable one, but today all too often we see greed as its prime mover. No cures for anything....just expensive tests and ongoing expensive treatments that will have to be taken for the rest of our miserable lives....but we have to see our doctor regularly to keep prescribing the same medication, year in year out. The perpetual customer base seen each week at the pharmacy with a basket full of pills. Never feeling any better but talked into taking lots of medication, much of which comes with awful side effects. The system is broken, like everything else in this world exploited by greed.

You are literally accusing medical professionals, charities and global world health organizations, the world over, of participating in a massive cover up for... no reason whatsoever.

I'm sorry, but I find this level of disparagement of people utterly absurd and revolting.

 

[savagewind]

Do you recognize them though?

Do I recognize the false shepherds? Yes. Do I recognize who follows them? No.

For example, according to what Jesus said at John 15:17-21 can you identify those claiming to be Christian that disqualify themselves?

You do not know what no part of the World means, imo.

 

[John53]

If that is what you think I said then no, you don't see at all. I belong to a religion that is one of the most "disagreed" with in existence.....but then, so did Jesus. Copping flack is what we are used to.

I do see and you don't like I see lol It's kind of pathetic that you think your modern life in Australia can be compared with the life of someone in Roman occupied Middle East.

Is an atheist going to defend Roman Catholicism now?

No but I will point out hypocrisy.

Sorry, but your analogy is not even close....You do understand that there is pressure from the industry itself...? Blood is a multi-million dollar business.....so they are never going to allow doctors to reveal how many patients actually die because they have been given blood.....how would they know? Apparently that comes under the category of "we did everything we could".....who is going to argue with that? We trust that doctors know what they are doing......don't we? .....but if they are sold a bill of goods themselves by those who train them.....should we?

The medical profession used to be an honorable one, but today all too often we see greed as its prime mover. No cures for anything....just expensive tests and ongoing expensive treatments that will have to be taken for the rest of our miserable lives....but we have to see our doctor regularly to keep prescribing the same medication, year in year out. The perpetual customer base seen each week at the pharmacy with a basket full of pills. Never feeling any better but talked into taking lots of medication, much of which comes with awful side effects. The system is broken, like everything else in this world exploited by greed.

Ill-informed attack on the medical profession.

Ever filled out a hospital admission form? If you have, then you might wonder why they have to ask the question..."Have you EVER had a blood transfusion?" There is way more risk than they are willing to tell you.

They also ask what operations you have had. They also ask your religion. They ask pages of questions. So what...

 

[savagewind]

I know what "no part of the World means". @nPeace Might I be wrong? Yes, but probably not.

 

[nPeace]

You do not know what no part of the World means, imo.

Why do you make that assertion?

 

[Deeje]

Did you bother to look up who Conformis is? Did you think to question the reasons for their comments?

Yes, they are the makers of what appears to be a superior type of knee replacement. What does that have to do with anything? It is now common knowledge among the medical professionals themselves that blood is bad medicine. What was the motive of the Australian Government to post that first video on its website? You are clearly looking for excuses to perpetuate a common, yet revealed now by the medical professionals themselves, to be a dangerous procedure.

Or were you told by JW uppers that there was a video that was negative to blood transfusions and could be used to further the JW agenda (as long as no one questioned the source).

You seem to think that JW's can't think for themselves.....we do our own research and the information, carefully examined from both sides of this issue, makes it clear that there has been a decided shift involving those in the medical profession who are honest enough to turn the tide on a multi-million dollar industry, more concerned with their bottom line than with patient safety. They are sounding the warning....but you seem to want to disbelieve them......is it because disbelieving anything outside your own ideas is habitual?

That kind of ploy works well when it is directed at people like JWs who don't question anything that their leadership throws at them.

You don't seem to understand that your own party line is just as unbelievable to us. Your own 'leaders' dictate what you believe. Much of what you accept as truth is based on faith because it cannot be proven.....so why do you imagine that you occupy some kind of superior position here?

Just as you don't care about what we believe....we don't really care what you believe, but airing our views publicly here can help to give others some food for thought....so it's not entirely wasted.

It doesn't work at all when directed toward skeptics.

Skeptics are a dime a dozen.....do you really think that it matters to anyone but yourselves? The only people who are impressed by skeptics are other skeptics. God is not looking for skeptics because he doesn't have to prove himself to anyone....it is we who have to prove ourselves to him. That creates a line of demarcation....people who need proof are on one side and people who have faith are on the other....
Your choices are yours to make, just as mine are.

 

[savagewind]

Why do you make that assertion?

Because it is my opinion. I know that the JWs teach it wrong and I have never heard anyone say anything different. Maybe you can tell me what you believe it means and then I can affirm or apologize. What do you think?

 

[oldbadger]

That makes it a procedural issue and wouldn't have been a problem had proper procedures been used. I've given blood before to patients. I know what the rules are. Do it right and it's highly unlikely anything will go wrong. It's not like a nurse can just hook up blood and leave for the four hour administration. We have vital sign parameters that can trigger an immediate halt to the procedure and a good flushing with normal saline and benadryl and such things. If there IS a reaction, someone screwed something up somewhere, like not getting the right type or not ensuring the quality of the product.

I will look up to discover how many JWs have died in the last five years for lack of blood transfusions, but I'#ll be surprised to find many, if any.

In the UK blood transfusions are not absolutely safe, Kelly.
Nor are inaccurate prescription medications which are reckoned to kill thousands each year.

But just sticking to blood transfusions specialists here reckon that up until now 20% of all blood transfusions have been unnecessary and even with blood screening the % of lung-damage cases is too high.

I don't know anything about it but I dio read the news reports, is all.

One randomly selected report.......
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-5169611/Experts-think-blood-transfusions-harmful.html
Experts who think blood transfusions could be HARMFUL: More are being given than ever. But with potentially deadly side-effects, is it now time to limit their use?
Like antibiotics and X-rays blood transfusions were scientific break throughs
There are fears what some experts call doctors' ‘love of blood’ has gone too far
Concerns over the safety of blood from strangers were highlighted recently
But now, with around two million transfusions a year performed on the NHS, there are fears that what some experts call doctors’ ‘love of blood’ has gone too far, potentially endangering patients with transfusions that are unnecessary — an estimated one in five cases.

 

[savagewind]

Jehovah's Witnesses believe and teach that no blood transfusion is ever right. None. Not even the ones having been done before modern medicine to save a life from severe blood loss. They say that Jehovah says, "No!"