• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Putting the JW Stand on Evolution in Perspective

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
I am beginning to understand why you like the Daily Mail. If, after reading my post, you concluded that I chose a newspaper, then, clearly your reading comprehension is sorely lacking.
Ha ha! I buiy one newspaper for a monthly breakfast treat, and it's often the Mail because it's cheaper than the Mirror. One is rightwing, the other is leftwing.

You don't have a clue about me.

Regarding distaste for the Daily Mail, I clearly stated: It seems to be the consensus of Brit readers.
Oh, please.......... the Guardian mirrored the Mail's reports!
You cannot be that naive that you believed that everything written by the Mail was distortion and lies. Well now you know better.

And you didn't pick the Guardian at random, either. Now get reading some truth about blood transfusions before you do the self-righteous ranting bit at JWs over their beliefs, ok?

Lesson learned......
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
Someone, somewhere, quoted from an article in the Daily Mail. I responded that the Daily Mail was a rag that was not to be trusted. Subsequently, I found that Brits share my distaste for the Daily Mail.

Frankly, I don't care what the story is about. I also don't care if the Daily Mail got one story right one time. It's a rag. Anyone who quotes from it should know that.



In any case, the real problem seems to be more with your politicians than with science.

Britain's contaminated blood scandal: ‘I need them to admit they killed our son’
In 1984, the US Food and Drug Administration banned medical use of blood from high-risk groups including prisoners. But the British Department of Health continued to import blood from US prisons,​


So you used stuff in ignorance of the facts...... that's fair enough, but you need to realise that blood transfusions can be very dangerous, and if JWs don't believe in 'em then fair enough.

Do you rant at parents who drive dangerously and then cause the deaths of their own kids? When did you do that last, if ever? No..... you just like trashing various religious groups. Agenda!
 

savagewind

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Because it is no longer anything to do with you, nor ever was with me, Savage.

I wouldn't ask rock climbers why they do iot, but they surely do die at it.
I wouldn't rant in self righteous indignation at yachtsmen for taking their kids on boats, but they do, and kids do die....... (I can think of one or two that I knew).

That's why I kick against the folks who make armchair self-righteous judgement about others' beliefs, cultures, lifestyles etc....... it's just plain agenda driven aggression, mostly. Like this thread that was titled 'Stand on Evolution'....... it's what we call a 'stalking horse' here..... they start a debate with one apparent goal when in fact it's something else entirely that's wanted.
But, I think you missed the point! I am not even a little bit against the belief that a certain JW won't take a blood transfusion or allow it for their children. I am against them calling it sinning when someone does. They say, "Jehovah says" when I know for certain that Jehovah doesn't say.
 

ecco

Veteran Member
Ha ha! I buiy one newspaper for a monthly breakfast treat, and it's often the Mail because it's cheaper than the Mirror. One is rightwing, the other is leftwing.

You don't have a clue about me.


Oh, please.......... the Guardian mirrored the Mail's reports!
You cannot be that naive that you believed that everything written by the Mail was distortion and lies. Well now you know better.

And you didn't pick the Guardian at random, either. Now get reading some truth about blood transfusions before you do the self-righteous ranting bit at JWs over their beliefs, ok?

Lesson learned......
Yeah. You really do have reading comprehension problems:
I never said, "everything written by the Mail was distortion and lies".
I didn't pick the Guardian at all. I didn't pick any paper.
Any comments I made about JW or anyone else's beliefs regarding blood transfusions were fact-based.​

If you disagree with any of the above, show where it's wrong.
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
The medical profession establishes guidelines and standards of practice to protect patients from rogue physicians practicing unscientifically. Physicians should be subject to oversight, and the mavericks reined in to protect the public.

I agree that the rogues need to be reined in to protect the public on both sides of this issue....the hard part is identifying the wolves in sheep's clothing.

The medical profession today is little more than a money-making racket, but people have been inured to their gradual manipulation of the public over the decades by demonizing the opposition and making themselves out to be the heroes. In the big scheme of things, they fix very little whilst claiming to do "all they can". What "all they can" means in that context is...."all they are allowed to do within the confines of orthodox medical practice"....which in the majority of cases leads only to a lifetime of pill-taking....not often to better health.

I believe that in the US state of Texas there was a bill passed called "The Right to Try", which allowed terminally ill patients to try other treatments that others had used with success. Cannabis, e.g. has been seen to cure certain types of cancer in a short space of time (shrinking tumors) with no ill effects on the patient. Why should anyone be denied the right to try something that is readily available, cheap to produce, and shown to be successful in the treatment of many patients? I can think of only one reason.....it might work and the medical profession along with their cronies, (the big drug corporations) would be made to look like charlatans.

Pharmacology isn't real medicine to you? I'm guessing that all of your understanding of the matter come from your religion, not from training and experience prescribing pharmaceuticals and monitoring their effects. Prescription medications extend lives, help maintain function, and help restore comfort.

My religion has nothing to do with my personal views on this subject. JW's are not dictated to about the medical treatments they choose. It is up to us to research the pros and cons of any medical treatment and make our own choices. Blood transfusions is just one of them. The more we research outside of the orthodox system, the more alarming the data becomes. As I said, doctors are the only ones who can bury their mistakes. It is they who sign death certificates.

Pharmacology is the medicine that people today expect. You go to the doctor who writes you a prescription for a pill or a bunch of different ones to deal with all the unwanted side effects.

Illness is not about getting pills to make you feel better. Real medicine is about getting to the cause of the problem, not simply treating the symptoms. This is what functional medicine is all about. Dedicated doctors, who are sick to death of prescribing often dangerous medications that do very little to get to the cause of illness, are defecting from a useless medical system, to one that actually addresses the causes of ill health. I thank God for them, having had way more success with alternative natural medicines than with any orthodox medical treatments myself.

It seems like you don't know what a symptom is. You shouldn't be lecturing on medicine.

Oh please.....who doesn't know what a symptom is? :facepalm: Are you serious?

The Christian Old Testament, which recommends them, and secular humanism, which condemns them.

I believe we left ancient methods of punishment behind, a very long time ago. Not sure how many civilized countries even have the death penalty anymore. With the state of the judicial system these days...its just as well, I think.

Secular humanists trying to combat human stupidity, much of which is steeped in tribalism and superstition, but are getting a lot of resistance. Look at this human stupidity:
  • "We don't have to protect the environment, the Second Coming is at hand" - James Watt, Secretary of the Interior under Reagan (note his position and responsibilities)
  • "My point is, God's still up there. The arrogance of people to think that we, human beings, would be able to change what He is doing in the climate is to me outrageous." - Sen. Inhofe, R-Okla
  • "The Earth will end only when God declares it's time to be over. Man will not destroy this Earth. This Earth will not be destroyed by a flood. . . . I do believe God's word is infallible, unchanging, perfect." - Rep John Shimkus, R-Ill.

Yep, I couldn't agree more. We humans are the custodians of this planet and we are doing a lousy job. I'm not sure what tribalism and superstition have to do with any of it, but God certainly did not mess up the planet......we did that all by ourselves. Do you doubt that? The fact that we are still producing plastic products when it has been known for decades that it pretty much lasts forever and will continue to choke the planet and its creatures, is unconscionable......but what does that tell you about the powers that rule this world? Money speaks all languages. It cares about nothing but profit.

What are the secular humanists doing about any of it apart from whining? We are confined to a system whose continuing activity is killing our planet......burning fossil fuels to power our cars and our homes.....raping the earth of its resources despite the fact that no one really knows what removing those vast quantities of coal, gas and oil might mean for future generations. Might they have been put there for a reason.....NOT to be removed and burned to pollute the air we breathe?

If people were seen to be actually doing something to stop the rot.....that would be good...but have we already gone too far? There is no point in cleaning up the mess until we stop making it......is there? :shrug:
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
I live in a happy and beautiful world.

Well, bully for you. Countless billions do not live in your bubble. If you pretend that they are not there will those people go away?.....is that how secular humanism works?

These contrasting attitudes of ours reflect our differing traditions, yours Jehovah's Witness, mine secular humanism. Your worldview is extremely pessimistic, nihilistic, and misanthropic, so that's the world you see.

My worldview is extremely optimistic compared to yours IMO. You see what is, and expect people to change when they never have.....I see what can be because God has the power to change people...one at a time, to envision a future that is all that they can imagine and more. Humans alone have the capacity for logic and reason based on what they see and hear....but also by what they feel....the emotional component that is inherent in all of us.
Spirituality is an intrinsic part of humanity exclusively and it can burn bright in those who have not turned a hose on hope.

Nihilistic? Misanthropic? God loves people and so do we.....why do you think we give up our precious free time to engage in spreading a message of something better to come? If we hated people or thought of them as irrelevant, we wouldn't bother.....we would just cosy ourselves up, reading our Bibles, just being content to save our own skin. You have a very warped view of who we are.

Mine is the optimistic one. I prefer my happy world to your sad one.

Oh, if only optimism could fix the problems.....Going on man's track record to date.....I would find my worldview more realistic than yours. The power who created the world is the only one who can save it. Humans do not have the will as they demonstrate every day.

I do not question your motives but I do question your optimism in the face of overwhelming and insurmountable problems.....all caused by humanity.
 
Last edited:

Hockeycowboy

Witness for Jehovah
Premium Member
Pretend that I know nothing of evolution but have extensive knowledge of biology. Please explain to me the things you just asserted. With supporting evidence.

Thanks.
Grief! They evidence is there for all to study...

"The introduction of a variety of organisms in the early Cambrian, including such complex forms of the arthropods as the trilobites, is surprising . . Why should such complex organic forms be in rocks about 600 million years old, and yet be totally absent from rocks in the previous 2 billion years? . . If there has been evolution of life, the absence of the requisite fossils in the rocks older than the Cambrian is puzzling."

-- Marshall Kay and Edwin Colbert, "Stratigraphy and Life History," p. 102.


Etc., etc.
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
Yeah. You really do have reading comprehension problems:
I never said, "everything written by the Mail was distortion and lies".
I didn't pick the Guardian at all. I didn't pick any paper.
Any comments I made about JW or anyone else's beliefs regarding blood transfusions were fact-based.​

If you disagree with any of the above, show where it's wrong.

Which part of 'Blood Transfusions are not always needed, and can be dangerous or deadly' are you having difficulty in understanding? I tried to show this to you but you moaned about the source. You showed that another paper was good. I used that as a source. Now you want to moan about newspapers, probably directing away from the above simple true fact.

I don't know who introduced the '...and they kill their babies' thing to a thread about evolution, nor do I care. These self-righteous buffoons don't write in to howl and scream about parents who put their kids in to serious risk of injury or death by driving like criminals., or smoking near them, or going top dangerous sports with them or whatever........ such folks want to moan about the JWs and the blood 'thing'. !!!!

How about you present us with a proven list (from a true newspaper, please) of JW children and JW babies that have died for want of a blood transfusion, could you?

Good Luck with that.....
:facepalm:
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Grief! They evidence is there for all to study...

"The introduction of a variety of organisms in the early Cambrian, including such complex forms of the arthropods as the trilobites, is surprising . . Why should such complex organic forms be in rocks about 600 million years old, and yet be totally absent from rocks in the previous 2 billion years? . . If there has been evolution of life, the absence of the requisite fossils in the rocks older than the Cambrian is puzzling."

-- Marshall Kay and Edwin Colbert, "Stratigraphy and Life History," p. 102.

Etc., etc.

A quote taken out of context with no links of a rather out of date book is worthless in a debate. According to you the Bible advocates atheism since at least twelve times it says "There is no God".
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
But, I think you missed the point! I am not even a little bit against the belief that a certain JW won't take a blood transfusion or allow it for their children. I am against them calling it sinning when someone does. They say, "Jehovah says" when I know for certain that Jehovah doesn't say.

But he did say, Savage. He did.
Back in the day, the Israelites had a bunch of 613 laws which they claimed to have been instructed to obey by their God.
Sin was about breaking any of them, and SIN LED TO SICKNESS.

Sickness could show itself in several ways. Illness. Death. No Cohesion. Weakness. Failure. etc.....

You want an example?

Don't eat shellfish! The deadly illnesses bunched together and called 'Shellfish poison paralysis' are of the most dangerous sicknesses in the World, Savage. And so if a bunch of Israelites went down on the foreshore and through sheer hunger they ate the shellfish...... they could ALL be dead by next morning..... a dreadful death as they watched their loved ones die among them.

You see? SIN LEADS TO SICKNESS!

If you pick a law from the 507 that are not about ceremony or sacrifice I can show you how failure to keep it could lead an Israelite to weakness, sickness etc etc.

Sinning is not such a bad word. If JWs get the word wrong then it's up to them. I'm not going to go down to the Kingdom Hall this Sunday to stand outside and chant and howl out about my version of SIN is different to theirs...... Elder friends of mine would be embarrassed for me and call Mrs Badger to come and get me..... and then I would really really be in trouble. :D
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
A quote taken out of context with no links of a rather out of date book is worthless in a debate. According to you the Bible advocates atheism since at least twelve times it says "There is no God".

Hi there.....
What are the chances that life from other stars has managed to reach here during the last 14 billion years?
 

Hockeycowboy

Witness for Jehovah
Premium Member
A quote taken out of context with no links of a rather out of date book is worthless in a debate.

OK....a more updated statement is necessary, you feel?

"But the real challenge of the Cambrian explosion is the wide variety of fossilizable forms which appeared at more or less the same instant in geological time. Every single phyla represented by modern day organisms -- certainly all those with fossilizable parts -- were included, yet for none is there any clearly identifiable ancestor. It is explaining the simultaneous and abrupt appearance of those which is one of the leading challenges in evolutionary biology. "


-- Dawkins: The Greatest Show on Earth

I think this was in 2009. See? It hasn't changed.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
OK....a more updated statement is necessary, you feel?

"But the real challenge of the Cambrian explosion is the wide variety of fossilizable forms which appeared at more or less the same instant in geological time. Every single phyla represented by modern day organisms -- certainly all those with fossilizable parts -- were included, yet for none is there any clearly identifiable ancestor. It is explaining the simultaneous and abrupt appearance of those which is one of the leading challenges in evolutionary biology. "


-- Dawkins: The Greatest Show on Earth

I think this was in 2009. See? It hasn't changed.
So what do you not understand about that quote? It does not support your earlier statement at all.
 

Astrophile

Active Member
Gravity, just like evolution, has its limits, too. Go 500,000 miles into space, and see what effect Earth's gravity has on you.
It will accelerate you toward the Earth at 0.62 mm/s². After a day of this acceleration you will be travelling at 120 mph, and will have fallen about 1450 miles toward the Earth.
 
Last edited:

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
Hard to say. Probably extremely slim.
Well, because everything in our Solar system is dust from other Stars, and because the building blocks of life could well have reached here thus, that is the foundation of the idea.

But beyond that anything is possible. The human leap from pencils and paper thru' the television on to to digital technology whereby most children that I see have mobile phones which can take videos and send them these to their grannies far away, even speaking to same in Star-Trek fashion....... all in 100 years, .... I rather do project my thoughts towards what can be possible in 1000 years, or millions, or billions of years. What could be achieved is beyond our comprehension.

Why would they visit the Earth anyway?
Why not?
We would certainly stop if it was convenient to see what we could harvest from a planet as we passed by. Look what we did to the Americas........

The amazing thing is, that the whole planet could have been cultivated. We thought that we knew it all 1000 years ago...... and 500....... and 100...... and last week. In another ten years we will have doubled or tripled or quadrupled our knowledge, and if we survive our greed and hatred maybe we might be able to travel interstellar one day? And then we would know how it happened for sure!
 
Top