tas8831
Well-Known Member
Define "suddenly" in this context.
Is it the same kind of sudden as when Jehovah breathed life into dust and as if by magic a fully-formed human adult male emerged?
-
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
- Thread starter Skwim
- Start date
Define "suddenly" in this context.
Is it the same kind of sudden as when Jehovah breathed life into dust and as if by magic a fully-formed human adult male emerged?
tas8831
Well-Known Member
If I were going to start a cult with myself as Leader, I would tell my would-be followers:
That I am the only way to the truth
Those that deny my truth are fools
The only way your lives will have purpose is to do my bidding
Do my bidding, you will be rewarded
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
In that very same paragraph, he says, ""His opponents interpreted this event as the moment of creation, for not a single trace of Precambrian life had been discovered when Darwin wrote the Origin of Species. (We now have an extensive record of monerans from these early rocks, see essay 21)"
The Panda's Thumb: More Reflections in Natural History
Quote Mine Project: "Sudden Appearance and Stasis"
Oops. That's why you shouldn't quote mine.
Yes it is hard to grasp because you're not making sense. What do you mean by suddenly? Are you claiming there are no fossils before the Cambrian period?
What do you feel my bias is?
Find that exact phrase in our publications....where it's discussing evolution, and it's expressing the writers' view.....I'll give you $1,000.
Like you would really accept any definition I'd give, lol!
"Many species remain virtually unchanged for millions of years, then suddenly disappear to be replaced by a quite different, but related, form. Moreover, most major groups of animals appear abruptly in the fossil record, fully formed, and with no fossils yet discovered that form a transition from their parent group"
-- C.P. Hickman, L.S. Roberts, and F.M. Hickman, Integrated Principles of Zoology, p. 866 (Times Mirror/Moseby College Publishing, 1988, 8th ed).
If there are no obvious precursors...just what do you think that means?!
Yeah, you get it. Lol. (Your "asking-useless-questions" ploy is a dead giveaway.)
We're through.
OK so you were just parroting someone else and have no idea. You're right I do get it!
You consider unicellular monera as obvious precursors for the diverse, hard-shelled complex body plans of the Cambrian?
You are gullible! No one else does.
But I guess, if grasping at straws is all you got....
@SkepticThinker , you should know better than using the funny rating to be derogatory....don't do it again!
That was another thread...I posted the evidence. You know, the evidence including the Pleistocene extinctions, which geologists can't agree with? And which, accordingly, you never could debunk the explanation provided by the Genesis account of the Flood.
For those who are interested:
Evidences Supporting the Biblical Flood
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
Looks like you were right. Like you said.....so predictable.
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
Well, given how Jehovah's Witnesses are taught that "if evolution is true life has no meaning", it's hardly surprising that @Hockeycowboy @Deeje and @nPeace are so amazingly ignorant of the science even though they've been "discussing" it for years. If they understood it, they would risk accepting it, which would mean their "life has no meaning". Far safer to remain deliberately ignorant.
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
Why? Deeje does it quite a bit.
Also, your post to SZ where you claim we couldn't debunk your assertions about the flood strikes me as extremely funny. If that's the case, why shouldn't I be able to rate it as such?
Why do you suppose that the community of evolutionary sciences can't figure out what is so apparently self-evident to creationists? How do you account for that?
But that is incorrect. The earth's gravity might not be the most dominant factor in determining that body's motion, but there would be a component of attraction toward the earth.
Actually, the theory does provide an explanation of evolution in the Cambrian. It's a combination of genetic variation and natural selection over tens of millions of years. You seem to be implying that there wasn't enough time for that degree of adaptive radiation, but the scientific community disagrees, which is why the theory is not only in good standing with them, but considered settled science that may be tweaked by new discoveries, but never overturned.
Edit: I omitted my response to this initially.
The point I wanted to make is how creationists also unwittingly give a nod to science when they tell us how much their creation story got right. Science is treated as the standard by which the accuracy of scripture is judged - except evolution.
No embarrassment. There is no assumption that such a smooth clear line will ever be elucidated. It's unimportant to the theory that some forms may never be discovered. The theory merely posits that such creatures once existed, not that they all fossilized and that those fossils will be found any time soon or ever.
Last edited:
ecco
Veteran Member
I only had three points.
You didn't address any of them.
Of course I'm a believer. There's nothing wrong with believing. I believe many things.
I believe you failed to address the three questions I asked about your post. That's a belief founded on specific knowledge of the immediate past.
I believe you will not answer any of those three questions. That's a belief founded on general knowledge of the past - the knowledge that you duck and dodge and will probably continue to do so.
She has Jesus on her side... different set of rules.
ecco
Veteran Member
That's' not very original. That's what every religion does.
Oh, wait. I get it. You were being sarcastic.
To me, that is false hope. As I indicated to you before, people can learn to live without these promises, but if they have already been told them and believed them, it may be more difficult. They have to start while they are still young enough to adapt to authentic living.
Sure it does. Secular humanism offers a shot at an authentic existence and intellectual and moral maturity. Much better than pie-in-the-sky "solutions."
Disagree. Everybody capable of being happy should be happy, even in a world where bad things happen. Too bad you can' do that.
By the way, weren't you telling us earlier how happy you are? What happened to nobody should be happy if everybody isn't then?
You've never seen that from me. What you see from me is that it is possible to be happy even in a world where some are unhappy or suffering. To bad that has been taken from you by a false doctrine.
Where do you get this? I have everything I want. I have love, freedom, good health, leisure, and freedom from want. If that's the result of exploitation, give me more. I'd be happy with another thirty years of this exploitation.
Maybe you were thinking of yourself.
What were you hoping to see? A rope binding them together? Two creatures that are related as antecedent and descendant will have multiple commonalites, the more the closer in time they lived. The same is true in your family. What would link your paternal grandmother to your father if only their two skeletons were found? They will have many anatomical differences in their skeletons. And their genomes would differ if we had them. Yet they are very closely linked.
That's not hiding the truth to the discerning critical thinker.
No. I'm an atheist and secular humanist.
We expect that for all forms of therapy including pharmacotherapy, physical therapy, psychotherapy, radiation therapy, balneotherapy.
If there is a point or two that you'd like to make that you think is supported by the video, please make the point and we can proceed from there. I can't debate a video.
What's your obsession with drugs? Somehow, that's the whole of medicine to you. Medicine combines multiple therapeutic modalities, including surgical therapy, radiotherapy, physical therapy, psychotherapy, nutritional therapy, stem cell therapy, transfusional therapy, immunotherapy including vaccines, and more.
What lack of progress? I recently outlined much of the progress I saw during my tenure. And progress is not limited to cure. Advances in the mitigation of disease have been impressive as I indicated in my list of areas that I saw the most improvement in. Were you aware that rheumatoid arthritis, for which there was almost nothing available to prevent deformation of the hands. Allowing one's patient to become progressively more deformed over time, once unavoidable, is today considered malpractice in patients never tried on disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs).
I just lost a friend to prostatic carcinoma. When we met four years ago, he had a sky high PSA of over 300 (normal is well below 10). In my day, that corresponded to a prognosis of a few months to a year. My friend lasted much longer than that. I wasn't aware of the strides made in that area since my retirement
You're simply wrong about medicine. But that's probably because you get your information from the wrong sources.
No, preventative medicine is only relevant where it can be effective. People who eat well, maintain a healthy weight, exercise regularly, and avoid other known health risks still get sick, and need curative therapy where possible, and mitigative or palliative therapy if nothing better is available
Yes it is. You apparently also don't know what diabetes (mellitus) is, either.
No, it is not. That will be sufficient in some, but others will remain hyperglycemic and require pharmacotherapy to achieve euglycemia.
Nope. Physicians choose their patients' diets by specifying total calories, relative assignment of calorie intake to protein, carbohydrate, and lipid, sodium restriction where relevant, vitamin requirements, and the like. Typically, a physician writes and order for something like a 1200 calorie diet with 4000 mg. of sodium a day ("no added salt"), and the dietician selects the menu.
Yeah, I know. That's called medicine, even when performed by a non-physician.
Depends on what it takes to make the patient asymptomatic. Perhaps just a change of diet. Eliminate caffeine, which was apparently effective in your case. Peppermint, onions, chocolate, alcohol etc. should be restricted in turn as a therapeutic trial. Also, perhaps nothing to eat late at night, no tight clothing, and a more upright posture when in bed.
Even more difficult to treat is asymptomatic reflux. You're fortunate to know when your lower esophagus is bathing in acid. Not everybody can feel reflux. Those that can't are at risk for chronic esophagitis, Barret's esophagus, and a risk of esophageal carcinoma before they are even aware that there is a problem.
What would your naturopath's plan be in such a case? Whatever it is, I hope it includes continuous gastric acid suppression and periodic upper endoscopy with biopsy of suspicious appearing lesions