• 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

Jose Fly

Fisker of men
I only ever use the word in its UK judicial sense. I abhor the word absolutely!
That is positively hilarious. Please continue.....

Now let's look at the honest facts about that.....
Oh please, let's do....

You wrote to me using the word expert, thus:-
Jose:-
If you're going to try and pass yourself off as an expert in biology (to the point where you think your declarations on the subject carry weight), you should probably know things like this.


And so I just chucked it back at you with:-
oldbadger:- Not me mate.
Are you an expert?

Now Jose........ you're just wasting my friggin' time with this junk. If I have to go back to see that you initiated the word's use for me to reply to you with, then to write the stuff above as if you're actually smart.........
So let's see.....

You claimed that you never asked me if I was an expert, and chastised me for saying you did.

I showed where you specifically asked me if I was an expert.

Rather than admit your error and just say "Sorry, I forgot", you now chastise me for "wasting your time" by apparently pointing out your error?

Again, this is absolutely hysterical and highly entertaining. What is it with some of you and your inability to admit even the smallest, most insignificant error?

Jose....... you have a nice day, mate.
I think we're done here.
Oh but of course. Now that you've thrown your little tantrum and thoroughly embarrassed yourself, it's time to stomp your feet, take your ball, and go home. Even though you're behaving pretty much like every creationist ever, it's still entertaining as hell to watch.

Like I already said.... please don't waste any more of my time.
Riiiiiiiiiiiiight......because this discussion with you has been soooo productive. :rolleyes:

Well, I offered to go through some of the evidence behind human/primate common ancestry and you deliberately deleted that in your reply, so I'm not sure exactly what your point is here. But I do thank you for the laughs. :)
 

tas8831

Well-Known Member
Hmmmm.....so on purely circumstantial evidence you can make assumptions about pretty much everything? Is that what you are saying?
Isn't that what you do with your uncorroborated tall tales from the ancient middle east?
You take a fossil here, and a fossil there, and make wild assumptions about relationship based on nothing but similarity in bone structure when you know full well that many creatures who are unrelated have the same basic bone structure?
Wow, you so totally accurately described the field of paleontology! You must be the total expert you think you are!! Even though you can;t understand any field-specific terminology...
Do all these things sound like fortunate flukes to you? If it takes intelligent scientific minds to copy what is so ingeniously designed in nature, how does it not require intelligence to design and construct the originals?

Tell me if that is logical to you.....?
Logical to assume tribal deity magic when you don't take the time to understand it? Nope - not logical at all.
 

Jose Fly

Fisker of men
Well, he did threaten to report me for using laughing smilies to rate his posts, so there is that. I guess I will have to report Deeje and nPeace for that...
I guess, but I still don't see anything in the rules against it. Hardly surprising though to see that creationists can dish it out but can't take it.
 

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
Yep, that's pretty much what Jesus said.

Many Christians see the value in it!
So you admit that Christianity is a cult? Interesting.
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
Perhaps you are asking the wrong person that question.....



And despite all those "therapies"....how many of us enjoy good health today without the "need" for drugs? Mental health issues are now more prevalent than ever....drugs have a lot to do with this problem. Psych units are overburdened and staff at risk from those who are damaged by mind altering substances, turning violent.



Advances mostly involving the use of ongoing drug treatments, which so often have such adverse side effects that people are prescribed more drugs to cope with them.....its a joke. Is mitigation all that can be hoped for? Why not cures? Why just make treating symptoms the whole box and dice? Isn't that about making sure that your business plan is successful?

One clinician lamented the changes he has seen in his medical career.....

"What has led to such changes? A new factor is affecting health care in ways that would never have been anticipated: medicine has become a business. This has occurred because of hefty drug costs, decreasing reimbursements from insurance companies and Medicare/Medicaid, increasing regulatory burdens, the loss of cross-subsidization to cover the uninsured, and the need to treat a larger number and proportion of uninsured patients requiring more specialized and costly services. This fiscal aspect has so permeated medical practice and patient care that, to younger physicians, it goes unnoticed. In the real world of medicine, speed and efficiency using modern technology are the priorities, because the cost of health care and the very salaries of the health care personnel depend on it.

The effects are profound. Physicians are now “providers,” guided by case managers who decide on the length of “client” hospital stays, and professionals in business suits, not white coats, determine health care policy. Responsibility for patient care is now diffused among multiple providers with no single person willing or able to assume final responsibility for the patient. As a result, when decisions are made, the patient becomes confused and feels caught in the middle. It is no wonder that malpractice litigations and the use of alternative medicine have grown so dramatically."


https://www.gastrojournal.org/article/S0016-5085(04)00303-8/fulltext

When medicine became a business, patient care went out the window.



Auto-immune disorders (like rheumatoid arthritis) of many different sorts are surfacing today with the medical profession scratching their heads about what causes them and with no idea how to treat them....except with drugs. These often cause more problems than they solve, introducing synthetic chemicals into an already struggling body.

There are very basic causes of ill health that are associated with the diets of many western countries. The emphasis is not on the nutritional value of food but on shelf life. To ensure that food stays "fresher" longer, (to increase profits and avoid waste) they have to remove every living organism in that food. Living food, packed with fiber is what humans are designed to eat. Sufficient enzymes and good gut bacteria are essential for good digestion. The food bought in the average supermarket is basically dead.

Even fruits and vegetables are stored for long periods in cold storage, diminishing vitamin content. Vital mineral content is missing because the agricultural methods of mass production deplete the soil of minerals which are then enriched with artificial fertilizers and contaminated with poisonous pesticides. If ever there was a system designed to rob its population of good health...its the food industry. Add fast food and you can sign more death certificates. :(



May I ask what field you retired from?

I too have a friend treated for prostate cancer. His was in the early stages (fortunately) and he has no interest in natural medicines so he went down the orthodox route.
He has erectile dysfunction and incontinence as a result of the surgery. He is alive, but his quality of life is severely diminished.

I wish he'd had the option of trying whole plant cannabis (not the synthesized stuff being produced in labs that is useless) then he may have been able to defeat the disease and still have a good quality of life. But no one knows, because of the demonization of a harmless plant that may reduce pharmaceutical company revenues by a large margin. Watch them now make their expensive synthetic fake version and then claim that its useless. o_O



Perhaps it is you getting the same propaganda that has been around for decades. Time to wake up I think. Doctors and nurses get their information from the wrong sources I believe....a system designed to make it appear as if they are doing "all they can", when not much is being accomplished in reality. All those medical "breakthroughs" that we see on the news, that will be available in ten years....never materialize. No one seems to notice.



It is true that there are genetic factors in disease, but even in the area of gene therapy, a lot is being mooted but not much is really happening.

It is always good to prevent ill health, but we live in a system that is deliberately designed to make us sick. What medicine can "cure" would fit into a thimble compared to what they "treat" with expensive medication.



I have diabetes in my family.....I know about type one....more than I want to. Type two is a different story. My brother-in-law has type two....he is a 'junkfoodaholic' and always has been. I have friends who also have type two, they are obese and love their junk food as well. People who eat a healthy diet don't usually get type two diabetes. There is nothing to exhaust their pancreas so it doesn't shut down.

Calling it "Type 2 Diabetes" somehow makes it sound like you have a disease that you can't help......that is not true. It can be reversed and cured by diet alone. I have read the testimonies of many people who have accomplished it. Why doesn't the medical profession tell people that? No drugs huh?



That is not what I have found in my own research. I am hypoglycemic and can control my sugar levels well with diet alone.
Hyperglycemia can be the result of stress affecting hormones. If it is an ongoing problem, (cause unknown) it is treated the same as type one diabetes.
I believe that diet is implicated in the majority of type two cases however.



The medical profession is a poor source of nutritional information. Its not just about calories and salt.

The infamous "low fat" craze that swept the world resulted in more obesity than ever before....and in the sale of "low fat" products. The medical profession were warning people about the dangers of fat. Butter and healthy saturated oils (like coconut oil) were seen to be the culprits in heart disease....so margarine and polyunsaturated fats were touted as beneficial to health.....nothing could have been further from the truth.

We need healthy fats in our diet to regulate our metabolism. Sugar was much more of a problem which was added in copious quantities to low fat foods to make them more palatable. There is no one more gullible than Mr and Mrs General Public. Funny thing is...they never seem to wake up.



Yes the right kind of medicine...working with the body with natural remedies....not assaulting it with artificial chemicals that make it reject what you are putting into it. What do you think side effects are?



Again, if you eat a healthy diet, rich in fiber and whole foods, (organically grown,) you are less prone to any digestive problems. Good gut flora is essential as well as digestive enzymes if they are lacking due to a poor diet.



I have a natural therapist who can diagnose any of those issues noninvasively. She has been spot on in her diagnoses over the ten years I have been going to her. Iridology is an amazing thing though not her only diagnostic tool. The eyes tell all. Her natural remedies have been used by my family with great success ever since.

As a teenager, my daughter had bouts where she was violently sick. Doctors could not find the cause of the problem. Taking her to a natural therapist traced the problem to an unhappy gall bladder and she was given herbal treatment, she has not had another attack since.

In my own experience, the medical profession is needlessly hamstrung by the system that trains them. What they would consider "quackery" has worked for us in ways that the orthodox system never could.
You sound just like my uncle, who is going on to my sister (who is a nurse) and I about how the medical field is out to get us and are hiding cures from us to make more money and blah, blah.
When my uncle got prostate cancer, he went to a "naturopath" who put him on some regimen of diluted peroxide and B17 shots. You should have seen all the crap he had lined up on his kitchen counter. There was also some kind of mistletoe pill and blueberry pill (why not just eat blueberries?) in the mix. Anyway, he did this for months on end, spending heaps of money, and all the while his tumour was growing bigger. The naturopath actually told him that the tumour would get bigger before it would begin to shrink! So after months and months of this with his tumour continuing to grow, he decided to see an oncologist instead. The doctor ordered immediate surgery to have the tumour removed and he also underwent some brief chemotherapy. My uncle had that surgery, took a few months to recover and his cancer is now in remission. Had he stuck with the "naturopath" he'd probably be dead by now. The bizarre thing is that he'll still go on about the evils of the medical community today, even after it saved his life.

Oh and by the way, my uncle was ingesting cannabis during this entire time, and that didn't cure his cancer either, nor has it ever been shown to cure cancer. I suspect Bob Marley wouldn't have died from cancer, if that were the case. ;)
 

tas8831

Well-Known Member
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?
I think he is fishing for a way to punish those that are not impressed by his plagiarized quotes.
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
The gap in evolution between all else and mankind isn't a theory. It's a guess.
Fill the gap and finish the job, or go back to sleep Jose. :)


They've been trying to bridge the gap........... keep on trying. When the gap is bridged I hope to be alive to read about it.


Like a drink, do you?
What gap?
 

tas8831

Well-Known Member
Oh please.....its not the individual doctors who are the brunt of my argument, because the majority of them are as manipulated and hoodwinked as the rest of the population....

But not Deeje, nosiree! She knows the TRUTH about ALL THINGS!!!

Do you have no idea how ridiculously arrogant you sound in nearly every post you write?

Doctors must be as frustrated as their patients with the lack of progress in curing disease.
Golly, if only prayer worked, maybe this could have all been figured out centuries ago.

But, since you seem to think curing diseases is a walk in the park, do EXPLAIN it all to us! What should those deluded deceptive greedy medical researchers be doing such that they could have cured all forms of cancer decades ago!

You seem to think you know.
 

Jose Fly

Fisker of men
What gap?
Oh dear, now you've gone and done it! At first I thought the "gap" @oldbadger was talking about was the unidentified last common ancestor between humans and other primates. But when I asked him about it, he said "No". So then I kept asking him what "gap" he was talking about and he's gone full Patches O'Houlihan on me.....

hdyQXs-M--oPQ7NCVYCK5WkhOgOME8HVFO0qJAr1eJo.jpg
 

tas8831

Well-Known Member
EDIT: Actually, now that I look at the forum rules and guidelines, I don't see anything against rating posts as "funny".
:rolleyes:
I didn't see it either, and I looked for that specifically when I joined this site because another forum I post on explicitly forbids that (as 'goading'). In fact, I joined this forum when I was suspended from that other forum for using the laughing rating. Which, as you can imagine, the creationists there use quite readily with no repercussions.
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
Dishonest?

Where does life come from? Despite years of research, scientists still rack their brains over this most existential question. If the universe did begin with a rapid expansion, per the Big Bang theory, then life as we know it sprung from nonliving matter. How this process, known as abiogenesis, could have occurred is a source of much scientific debate.

Spontaneous generation
The first experimental evidence against spontaneous generation came in 1668 when Francesco Redi showed that no maggots appeared in meat when flies were prevented from laying eggs. It was gradually shown that, at least in the case of all the higher and readily visible organisms, the previous sentiment regarding spontaneous generation was false. The alternative seemed to be biogenesis: that every living thing came from a pre-existing living thing (omne vivum ex ovo, Latin for "every living thing from an egg").

In 1768, Lazzaro Spallanzani demonstrated that microbes were present in the air, and could be killed by boiling. In 1861, Louis Pasteur performed a series of experiments that demonstrated that organisms such as bacteria and fungi do not spontaneously appear in sterile, nutrient-rich media, but could only appear by invasion from without.

The belief that self-ordering by spontaneous generation was impossible begged for an alternative. By the middle of the 19th century, the theory of biogenesis had accumulated so much evidential support, due to the work of Pasteur and others, that the alternative theory of spontaneous generation had been effectively disproven. John Desmond Bernal, a pioneer in X-ray crystallography, suggested that earlier theories such as spontaneous generation were based upon an explanation that life was continuously created as a result of chance events.
..........
Louis Pasteur and Charles Darwin

Louis Pasteur remarked, about a finding of his in 1864 which he considered definitive, "Never will the doctrine of spontaneous generation recover from the mortal blow struck by this simple experiment."
..........
In a letter to Joseph Dalton Hooker
on 1 February 1871, Darwin discussed the suggestion that the original spark of life may have begun in a "warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity, &c., present, that a proteine compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes." He went on to explain that "at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed." He had written to Hooker in 1863 stating that, "It is mere rubbish, thinking at present of the origin of life; one might as well think of the origin of matter." In On the Origin of Species, he had referred to life having been "created", by which he "really meant 'appeared' by some wholly unknown process", but had soon regretted using the Old Testament term "creation".

"Primordial soup" hypothesis

Oparin proposed that the "spontaneous generation of life" that had been attacked by Louis Pasteur did in fact occur once, but was now impossible because the conditions found on the early Earth had changed, and preexisting organisms would immediately consume any spontaneously generated organism. Oparin argued that a "primeval soup" of organic molecules could be created in an oxygenless atmosphere through the action of sunlight.
..........
One of the most important pieces of experimental support for the "soup" theory came in 1952. Stanley L. Miller and Harold C. Urey performed an experiment that demonstrated how organic molecules could have spontaneously formed from inorganic precursors under conditions like those posited by the Oparin-Haldane hypothesis.

Current models

There is no single, generally accepted model for the origin of life. Scientists have proposed several plausible hypotheses, which share some common elements. While differing in the details, these hypotheses are based on the framework laid out by Alexander Oparin (in 1924) and by J. B. S. Haldane (in 1925), who postulated the molecular or chemical evolution theory of life. According to them, the first molecules constituting the earliest cells "were synthesized under natural conditions by a slow process of molecular evolution, and these molecules then organized into the first molecular system with properties with biological order".

So binding chemicals to chemicals, to form a bunch of chemicals equals life? Who or what brought the chemicals together?
Isn't that like mixing sand, water, and cement in a box, and coming back later, and proclaiming, "Look! A house." It formed by itself?

Who mixed the properties?
Perhaps we should stop the "flies" from getting into the jar.
Where would those chemicals be without the scientists - the flies?

Current approaches in evolution: from molecules to cells and organisms.
Though the model systems are diverse, the issues addressed are fundamental: the origin of evolutionary novelties, and the forces that drive them to fixation.

Many scientists a century ago chose to regard the belief in spontaneous generation as a philosophical necessity. It is a symptom of the philosophical poverty of our time that this necessity is no longer appreciated. Most modern biologists, having reviewed with satisfaction the downfall of the spontaneous generation hypothesis, yet unwilling to accept the alternative belief in special creation, are left with nothing - George Wald, "The Origin of Life," Scientific American, August 1954, p. 46

It seems you don't like to hear the truth, so you resort to calling people dishonest, but I think you are either looking in the wrong direction, or... wait! I should have asked, "You are not in your room looking at the mirror as you type, are you?
I certainty hope not, although I don't think you would be being cruel to yourself.

Can Life Arise from Non Life?
Like non living machines, living organisms must be engineered. That means planned, organized, coordinated, commanded and controlled. Living organisms are the most complicated objects in the universe so the requirement is mega-engineering, not the sub-idiot, headless, phantom, superstitious, engineering in the hallucinations of evolutionists.

Please, think about it.
What does this have to do with evolution?
 

tas8831

Well-Known Member
A non-religious person would never think in terms of information originating from mindless forces.

As a test, I went to Google and entered "complex information originates from mindless forces" without the quotes. The very first thing that comes up is...

This is a link to a JW Watchtower article that contains the term 'mindless process' six times.

You are so indoctrinated you can't even remember the origins of your thoughts.

My gosh...

That was beautiful. So clear an example of brainwashing is hard to find.
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
That is an assumption.....right? Since evidence needs interpretation, you rely on the words of the interpreter, which relies in turn on inference, not proof.....true? Since there is no actual proof that the evidence has been interpreted correctly, acceptance has to be based on faith.
Where evidence exists, faith is not required.

Stop trying to dumb down science and somehow make it the equivalent of faith-belief. It isn't. Things that are demonstrable don't require faith to accept.

No, you have some scientist's testimony that they "believe" that humans evolved from apes, based on what they have interpreted from the fossils they have found. Fossils do not speak.....they are given a voice by those who think they know what happened all those millions of years ago when no one was around to document anything except the Creator himself....and you don't believe him. It's OK though....he doesn't need you to believe in him.....he doesn't need those who don't need him. Simple.
No, what we have is a ton of evidence from multiple fields of science, from multiple groups of independent scientists collected over many multiple years that all point to the exact same conclusion.

Fossils do speak, with the evidence they provide by the mere fact that they exist.

Insufficient evidence...????

If you came across a cabin in the woods with solar electricity laid on, lighting, plumbing, air conditioning, carpeting, running water, and a fully stocked pantry....and a sign on the door that said "Welcome...make yourself at home".....would you immediately assume that no one built it and designed all those things that make living in it more comfortable? And would you not appreciate the generosity of such a person?
We are living in that cabin and you insist that no one made it....it just happened to pop up out of nowhere for no apparent reason, all by itself. No one to thank but some fictitious person called "Mother Nature". :confused:
I would assume a human built the house. Want to know why? Because all of my experience with houses indicates that human beings build them. And because I can compare the house with things found in nature and realize that houses aren't naturally occurring.
 

tas8831

Well-Known Member
A slow process of mindless undirected evolution is illogical to us because we all know that useful design requires a designer. Design requires planning...planning requires intelligence.
Pity that in all of your extensive education, you never seemed to learn about logical fallacies, because you sure seem to rely on them.
Whatever the heck that means....? People seem fond of labels that make them sound more important or intelligent than they really are.

And some people just act that way. For instance, there is this one person that claimed that 'bacteria make themselves immune' to antibiotics. Doesn't know what immunity actually means in the biological sense, I guess. Same person also claims that there is no evidence for evolution, and when presented with some, admits she can't understand it, says scientists 'hide behind jargon' - made that claim 62 times! But then she goes on this website set up for kids and people with no education where they don;t use 'jargon', and she derides it for not having enough scientific terminology!

What is it with such people?
 
Top