• 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!

Remarkably complete’ 3.8-million-year-old cranium of human ancestor discovered in Ethiopia

sealchan

Well-Known Member
And you know why? Because you won't ever learn from your errors.

I understood your post. You did not understand your error and falsehoods, that you is why you really should take a few minutes to learn.

Your last line is a clear falsehood. A statement like that at the Dover trial with or have risked a perjury charge.

Edit: And the Ostrich Defense is never very impressive.

The Ostrich defense...they say "read the Bible, there is your evidence" but they won't "study the science" a much longer and more reproducible "story" of the truth...like certain figures in public, they think that repeating a belief will make it a truth. They fight the very nature of the creation that their creator made.

Random rant follows...

Certainly science is always working in the realm of belief in the form of metaphors, concepts, images...but these generate hypotheses, testable beliefs and the observations of all aspects of the God's creation (or Nature's) points us more and more to a unified set of such ideas and beliefs. No knowledge can be gained without some form of guess at what that might be. But for science the goal is a sort of universal, democratic experience of that truth that is in continual flux and change like leaves on a tree for which branches have formed which grow from a great trunk which has roots deep in the earth and which has brought progressive change to the human experience across the entire planet. For religion it is a closed acceptance of an old story as truth, but from a long ago time which was itself a story borrowed from and stands in contrast to other sincerely held beliefs from other cultures. Religion does not support a democratic, evidentiary basis which has any room to grow. It casually dismisses older and just as sincerely held belief systems without any due process. It acts like the bully in the room and sees its stubborn persistence as self-sufficient...it ignores the value of the perspectives of others and gives no ground because to do so would be a threat to one's integrity.

Sad.
 

Jose Fly

Fisker of men
There is no supporting evidence for the theory of evolution.
I know the Jehovah's Witnesses basically require their members to hold this view, but it's such a weird thing to say. No evidence whatsoever? None at all? Every time I see someone say that I immediately wonder what they think of the world's biological science community. Obviously biologists the world over and for the last 100+ years take the opposite view. I'm pretty sure if you asked every biologist in the world "Do you agree or disagree that there is supporting evidence for evolutionary theory", pretty much all of them would agree. Even a lot of creationists acknowledge that there is indeed some evidence for evolutionary theory.

But then I remind myself that nPeace is a Witness, and from what I can tell from my conversations with other Witnesses here, they believe the world's scientific community is under the influence of Satan and as a result they are working to turn people away from God and the one true religion.

Everyone here should keep this in mind when they try and explain or present science to a JW creationist. When the Witnesses click on a link to a paper or other science resource, they quite literally believe that what they're looking at is the work of the devil.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
I know the Jehovah's Witnesses basically require their members to hold this view, but it's such a weird thing to say. No evidence whatsoever? None at all? Every time I see someone say that I immediately wonder what they think of the world's biological science community. Obviously biologists the world over and for the last 100+ years take the opposite view. I'm pretty sure if you asked every biologist in the world "Do you agree or disagree that there is supporting evidence for evolutionary theory", pretty much all of them would agree. Even a lot of creationists acknowledge that there is indeed some evidence for evolutionary theory.

But then I remind myself that nPeace is a Witness, and from what I can tell from my conversations with other Witnesses here, they believe the world's scientific community is under the influence of Satan and as a result they are working to turn people away from God and the one true religion.

Everyone here should keep this in mind when they try and explain or present science to a JW creationist. When the Witnesses click on a link to a paper or other science resource, they quite literally believe that what they're looking at is the work of the devil.

I just cannot understand the mentality of a cult that requires one to bear false witness, at least that is how @nPeace is acting. Clearly he knows that he is telling a lie. He won't even let himself discuss the nature of evidence because then he would have to openly admit to lying.
 

Jose Fly

Fisker of men
I just cannot understand the mentality of a cult that requires one to bear false witness
It's kind of a George Costanza thing.....


at least that is how @nPeace is acting. Clearly he knows that he is telling a lie. He won't even let himself discuss the nature of evidence because then he would have to openly admit to lying.
I don't think so. I think they truly, deeply believe what they post here, including that the world's scientific community is under the influence of the devil. IMO, they're no more "lying" than when a Catholic tells you that a blessed communion wafer becomes the literal body of Christ.
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
It's really sad, to me that one is unable to have a conversation about theory of evolution, without the other person bringing in the person's religion, or religious background.
I would have thought that if the person who believes the theory of evolution is true, is discussing that topic, then they would stick to that topic, rather than focus on religion.
It tends to give me the impression, the person feels threatened by the religion they mention so much, as though it's their worst nightmare.

I really would welcome a discussion on the theory of evolution, if only... if only the person could help themselves from making, imo, false accusations that the person has a religious agenda, because then I would say, they have a philosophical agenda, and really, that takes the discussion nowhere.

The fact is, one has to believe that the circumstantial evidence supports the theory of evolution, but really circumstantial evidence is never tied to one belief.
The evidence does not even strongly support the theory.
It is so weak as to be non-existent, and I have said this perhaps more than 50 times on these forums.
Not I alone, but many on these forums have shown that to be the case, and all the believers in the theory seem able to do is complain about religion.

Why? Imo, because deep inside, below all that show of strength they know, the evidence for the theory is weak, and they fear the Creationist are right, because of what that implies for them.
Imo.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
It's really sad, to me that one is unable to have a conversation about theory of evolution, without the other person bringing in the person's religion, or religious background.
I would have thought that if the person who believes the theory of evolution is true, is discussing that topic, then they would stick to that topic, rather than focus on religion.
It tends to give me the impression, the person feels threatened by the religion they mention so much, as though it's their worst nightmare.

I really would welcome a discussion on the theory of evolution, if only... if only the person could help themselves from making, imo, false accusations that the person has a religious agenda, because then I would say, they have a philosophical agenda, and really, that takes the discussion nowhere.

The fact is, one has to believe that the circumstantial evidence supports the theory of evolution, but really circumstantial evidence is never tied to one belief.
The evidence does not even strongly support the theory.
It is so weak as to be non-existent, and I have said this perhaps more than 50 times on these forums.
Not I alone, but many on these forums have shown that to be the case, and all the believers in the theory seem able to do is complain about religion.

Why? Imo, because deep inside, below all that show of strength they know, the evidence for the theory is weak, and they fear the Creationist are right, because of what that implies for them.
Imo.
The fact is that you let your erroneous religious beliefs affect your ability to reason rationally. If you could reason rationally and honestly no one would bring up your beliefs as an explanation for that bad behavior.

And no, you should not make false claims about others. If anything your fear of learning a simple concept such as evidence tells us that you know that your belief is very weak. A person without fear would not hesitate to learn what is and what is not evidence. A person without fear would not constantly make false personal attacks against others.

There is no fear by those on the side of science. Scientists unlike creationists want to know when they are wrong. That is why they embrace the concept of a testable hypothesis. Creation "scientists" tend to be cowards. How many testable hypotheses of creation have they come up with?
 

tas8831

Well-Known Member
The toe has to reach up to scratch a worm's ankle.

You're just upset that Dan proved your beliefs to be unreliable since they were all concocted in the past, when things were different.

You are your own worst enemy!
 

tas8831

Well-Known Member
Science has no means whatsoever to test anything spiritual actually.
False.

Bible claims miracle of slaughter via flood.

If this fake even actually happened, there must be MASSIVE amounts of evidence, seeing as how it is claimed (fish tale) to have covered the whole earth.


Easy test.

Easy fail.
As for your false claim that I think radioactive decay fluctuated in the old world..no. Prove their was any decay process at all then?
And there you go.


The homeless drunk tells us he is King of the World!
 

tas8831

Well-Known Member
OK. TOE is belief based, and this fact is evidenced by the absolute demonstrated inability of you or anyone else to show it is anything else.
I forget now who originally posted these on this forum, but I keep it in my archives because it offers a nice 'linear' progression of testing a methodology and then applying it - I have posted this more than a dozen times for creationists who claim that there is no evidence for evolution:

The tested methodology:


Science 25 October 1991:
Vol. 254. no. 5031, pp. 554 - 558

Gene trees and the origins of inbred strains of mice

WR Atchley and WM Fitch

Extensive data on genetic divergence among 24 inbred strains of mice provide an opportunity to examine the concordance of gene trees and species trees, especially whether structured subsamples of loci give congruent estimates of phylogenetic relationships. Phylogenetic analyses of 144 separate loci reproduce almost exactly the known genealogical relationships among these 24 strains. Partitioning these loci into structured subsets representing loci coding for proteins, the immune system and endogenous viruses give incongruent phylogenetic results. The gene tree based on protein loci provides an accurate picture of the genealogical relationships among strains; however, gene trees based upon immune and viral data show significant deviations from known genealogical affinities.

======================

Science, Vol 255, Issue 5044, 589-592

Experimental phylogenetics: generation of a known phylogeny

DM Hillis, JJ Bull, ME White, MR Badgett, and IJ Molineux
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.

Although methods of phylogenetic estimation are used routinely in comparative biology, direct tests of these methods are hampered by the lack of known phylogenies. Here a system based on serial propagation of bacteriophage T7 in the presence of a mutagen was used to create the first completely known phylogeny. Restriction-site maps of the terminal lineages were used to infer the evolutionary history of the experimental lines for comparison to the known history and actual ancestors. The five methods used to reconstruct branching pattern all predicted the correct topology but varied in their predictions of branch lengths; one method also predicts ancestral restriction maps and was found to be greater than 98 percent accurate.

==================================

Science, Vol 264, Issue 5159, 671-677

Application and accuracy of molecular phylogenies

DM Hillis, JP Huelsenbeck, and CW Cunningham
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.

Molecular investigations of evolutionary history are being used to study subjects as diverse as the epidemiology of acquired immune deficiency syndrome and the origin of life. These studies depend on accurate estimates of phylogeny. The performance of methods of phylogenetic analysis can be assessed by numerical simulation studies and by the experimental evolution of organisms in controlled laboratory situations. Both kinds of assessment indicate that existing methods are effective at estimating phylogenies over a wide range of evolutionary conditions, especially if information about substitution bias is used to provide differential weightings for character transformations.


We can hereby CONCLUDE that the results of an application of those methods have merit.


Application of the tested methodology:


Implications of natural selection in shaping 99.4% nonsynonymous DNA identity between humans and chimpanzees: Enlarging genus Homo

"Here we compare ≈90 kb of coding DNA nucleotide sequence from 97 human genes to their sequenced chimpanzee counterparts and to available sequenced gorilla, orangutan, and Old World monkey counterparts, and, on a more limited basis, to mouse. The nonsynonymous changes (functionally important), like synonymous changes (functionally much less important), show chimpanzees and humans to be most closely related, sharing 99.4% identity at nonsynonymous sites and 98.4% at synonymous sites. "



Mitochondrial Insertions into Primate Nuclear Genomes Suggest the Use of numts as a Tool for Phylogeny

"Moreover, numts identified in gorilla Supercontigs were used to test the human–chimp–gorilla trichotomy, yielding a high level of support for the sister relationship of human and chimpanzee."



A Molecular Phylogeny of Living Primates

"Once contentiously debated, the closest human relative of chimpanzee (Pan) within subfamily Homininae (Gorilla, Pan, Homo) is now generally undisputed. The branch forming the Homo andPanlineage apart from Gorilla is relatively short (node 73, 27 steps MP, 0 indels) compared with that of thePan genus (node 72, 91 steps MP, 2 indels) and suggests rapid speciation into the 3 genera occurred early in Homininae evolution. Based on 54 gene regions, Homo-Pan genetic distance range from 6.92 to 7.90×10−3 substitutions/site (P. paniscus and P. troglodytes, respectively), which is less than previous estimates based on large scale sequencing of specific regions such as chromosome 7[50]. "
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONCLUSION:

This evidence lays out the results of employing a tested methodology on the question of Primate evolution. The same general criteria/methods have been used on nearly all facets of the evolution of living things.

Too much "jargon" for someone that has "studied" all this for decades, I know.... I am beginning to lose faith in the honesty of creationists who make these embellished claims of having great scientific knowledge.




And you and your pal nPeace have what, now?

Oh right - you are King of the World (now how about a buck?)!
 

tas8831

Well-Known Member
It was orchestrated and conducted by a Spirit of course.
Unsupported question begging,.
Dismissed.
Who do you think opened the windows of heaven,
No evidence of "windows of heaven."
Fail.
and the founts of the deep,
No such things.
Fail.
and brought the animals to the ark,[/quote[]
No evidence of an ark.
Fail.
and gave the ark design to Noah and told him when the waters would come? Who closed the huge door of the ark? Who arranged the waters to be taken away? Etc etc.[/quotre]
Who made up these tales from an ancient time when things were totally different?

Fail.
So you thought entropy was responsible for how radioactive decay works? Tell us more! Maybe you think entropy will exist in heaven too? Keep us posted.
Different states past prove that bible tales are not to be believed.

You are your own worst enemy.

Now clean my windshield and I'll give you some grog, 'King of the World'...
 

dad

Undefeated
You're just upset that Dan proved your beliefs to be unreliable since they were all concocted in the past, when things were different.

You are your own worst enemy!
If people have no sense of time and when history started, and when Noah lived, and when the flood was, and want to compare that to last week or even a thousand years ago, they cannot be taken seriously.
 

dad

Undefeated
False.

Bible claims miracle of slaughter via flood.
And some of us learn from past mistakes. The insane repeat them.
If this fake even actually happened, there must be MASSIVE amounts of evidence, seeing as how it is claimed (fish tale) to have covered the whole earth.
All you need is actual science that can interpret and detect it's way out of a religious paper bag!

The homeless drunk tells us he is King of the World!

Re 5:10 - And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth.
 

dad

Undefeated
Unsupported question begging,.
Dismissed.

No evidence of "windows of heaven."

Fail.
The world abounds with support for God and the spiritual actually.

Since the windows of heaven were opened and closed in the year of the flood, one suspects that we would not see them now. Not sure what evidence you think should exist for or against?
 

tas8831

Well-Known Member
And some of us learn from past mistakes. The insane repeat them.
Different states past.

Different states past.
Different states past.
Different states past.

How many years have you been using this gibberish, Mr.Gates?

Bye bye now - you've gotten boring and tedious.

I'll re-start humiliating you in a few days.
 

dad

Undefeated
Different states past.

Different states past.
Different states past.
Different states past.

How many years have you been using this gibberish, Mr.Gates?

Bye bye now - you've gotten boring and tedious.

I'll re-start humiliating you in a few days.
Maybe seek some hot air supply for your delusion flow contributions here. Air seems to be out of your sails.
 

sealchan

Well-Known Member
I know the Jehovah's Witnesses basically require their members to hold this view, but it's such a weird thing to say. No evidence whatsoever? None at all? Every time I see someone say that I immediately wonder what they think of the world's biological science community. Obviously biologists the world over and for the last 100+ years take the opposite view. I'm pretty sure if you asked every biologist in the world "Do you agree or disagree that there is supporting evidence for evolutionary theory", pretty much all of them would agree. Even a lot of creationists acknowledge that there is indeed some evidence for evolutionary theory.

But then I remind myself that nPeace is a Witness, and from what I can tell from my conversations with other Witnesses here, they believe the world's scientific community is under the influence of Satan and as a result they are working to turn people away from God and the one true religion.

Everyone here should keep this in mind when they try and explain or present science to a JW creationist. When the Witnesses click on a link to a paper or other science resource, they quite literally believe that what they're looking at is the work of the devil.

Yet they use the devil's language (evidence) in their arguments. Seems like hypocrisy to me.

As a believer the one thought that keeps my mind most open and yet keen to discern the truth is this: what can be more true than what has actually happened in God's creation? Not what is considered Holy or Perfect...but what has actually happened. Surely a real God will be the God of reality and not story or dogma understood by humans.
 
Top