What was "it" that opened your eyes?

by jiggulz 49 Replies latest watchtower bible

tetrapod.sapien

TS, so that must make both creation and evolution nothing but unproved theories.

it's not that simple.
one of these theories is falsifiable, the other isn't. and yet, falsifiability is a prerequisete for a scientific hypothesis or theory. evolution is falsifiable any day at any time. all we would have to find are rabbit fossils in cambrian strata, date it to the same period, and presto, the entire theory would be severely damaged.
now, tell me how creationism is falsifiable? it's not, because the creationists have not defined anything on their own. they only reply to evolutionists. they have no model. their only model for bio-diversity is "God". and "God" himself is unfalsifiable, and unexplainable and a mystery, and only mentioned in some old book called genesis that has been shown to be written by 3 different people and not moses. therefore, creationism is unfalsifiable and is not scientific. not only that, but there is great debate as to whether god even exists, something which should give creationists pause, but it doesn't. all he would have to do, is show his face and slap the scientists up side the head, pat the creationists on the back, and show us how he did it. but he doesn't. either he doesn't care, doesn't exist, or is waiting for a future time. of those three possibilities, which is the most economic? why does it have to be economic? because god is not helping us out here, so we have to guess on our own. and no. i am not saying evolution is guess work. i am saying that until god shows up, evolution will be the most economic, ***parsimonious*** answer to the riddle of bio-diversity. it's falsifiable, has predictive value for future discoveries (to ensure that evolution as a theory is still relevant), and is a *simpler* explanation than God, because we can't know that god even exists.
does this make any sense? scientific method. it's all based on this, and NOT religious method, if there is such a thing. we have a lot to be thankful for with regards science, and people like scientists who were willing to follow the data wherever it led, regardless of what they think about god. this, of course, is not in response to the article you posted, but then again this thread isn't about evolution/creation either. but here is an illustration of what life probably looked like in the cambrian period, based on what we know from the fossil record. this is what life was like on earth, the entire earth, billions of years ago. religion (creationists) would never have found this out for us:
and please, no comments about how you think god could still have done all of this, because that is a question about abiogenesis, not evolution, as the computational nature of dna and rna suggests evolution much more strongly than that of the tinkering hand of a higher intelligence. does this make sense? we are computer programs, not blue prints. this is obvious when one learns about the nature of genomes, and *also* fits with the theory of evolution better than with the unfalsifiable, unproven *hypothesis* of creation.
i have already responded to many answersingenesis threads on this board in the last year. it's always the same story. i read it. i find the fallacy contained in the implicit assumption of the article. i shed light on it, and it's motives. then i move on to the technical stuff, explaining why it is a misrepresentation of evolution, and why what they are saying flies in the face of modern biology, or paleontology or anthropology or genetics. then i leave some smart-alec remarks, because i need to laugh a little as the previous exercise is always extremely boring. the creationists either do not understand/comprehend the replies, or they will not admit that they are cornered because they think jesus is watching, and frankly they have more allegiance to him than some atheistic human. and i am tired of doing this. tired of it, because i am not an evangelist for science. and i haven't even done half as much as alanF or abaddon or funky derek or sng or leolaia or midget. but it just gets tiring because it is a big old merry-go-round with creationists. you respond to one answersingenesis article, and a day later they post a different one. the evolutionists do all the work, and the creationists just sit back a chuckle at their impressive cut and paste abilities. and then 4 months later, the same article appears again, and the merry-go-round resumes.
good night,
TS
jwfacts

For me there was an event 10 years ago that almost did it, but not quite. A brother and sister from bethel were moved into my congregation. He was appointed an elder whilst there. A year later it came out that he had been having an affair for the last 7 years. It woke me up that holy spirit does not guide things and put me into a spiritual limbo ever since, but I still fell for the line 'but we are the only ones with truth'

When the Tsunami hit last year a friend told me that there was a tsunami in the same location that killed more people 300 years ago. I thought i would research earthquakes. I felt like i had been hit in the head with a bat. Without ever realising it, the WTS statements that there has been as many large earthquakes in the 1900s as in the 2000 years before was really key to my belief that 1914 was the start of the last days. To find that is a LIE, that earthquakes have been constant, and that every encylopedia etc backs that up virtually destroyed me. I started to find that my entire life had been based on lie upon lie. I am starting to realise that my behaviour since that moment has been classic symptoms of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. It is only 12 months later that i think i have begun to sort my self out and build a new life.

Coffee, that word 'filth' is so fitting. I have seen exactly the same experience with JW kids on a number of occasions. A friend of my had to pick her 6 yo child up from school because another child was having her birthday and the JW kid started saying she would be killed by God at Armageddon.

I recently saw another JW child saying the same thing about a worldly person and the look in this childs eyes just chilled me.
AK - Jeff

Lack of Love.
I could not see a 'Christlike' love in the dealings of the brothers. Especially I could not see this in the legal dogmatism that dominates the witness perspective. I excused as 'imperfection' for decades. Finally the light dawned that if Jesus said this would mark his people this was not his people.
Years of doubts eventually lead us to the evil internet and we obtained copies of Raymond Franz' books. That was it for us - the scales fell completely and we left after a lifetime of knowing nothing else religiously. Wifey was 'born in' and I was but 5 years old when the family became witnesses - so between the two of us we were witnesses for 90 years. The thought control is powerful to keep people in that long.
Jeff
yaddayadda

TS, you havn't really made a lot of sense to me. When you boil it down evolution insists that ultimately everything developed from a huge explosion that came from basically nothing. And I see that you cannot be bothered offering a proper critical refutation of that article on genetic mutations that I posted.
The ultimate 'cause' for evolutionists is the big bang, billions of years ago, triggered by something that evolutionists have no idea about. Evolutionists put their faith in a whole raft of things that are then said to have occurred over eons of time. Their God really is 'billions of years of time and blind chance'. Yet because God has been 'silent' in man's affairs for just a few millennia they conclude that therefore there is no God. They are quite willing to blindly put their faith in billions of years of time where matter and highly complex lifef orms are said to have developed from a giant explosion, yet they scoff at the idea of a God that communicated with humans just a couple of millennia ago. They have proven nothing in laboratories. Evolutionists like to imagine that their theory is falsifiable, but the reality is they have failed to do that. After decades and decades they have totally failed to provide even one proper example, either through the fossil record or produced in a laboratory of one species definitely change to another. They have so far completely failed to even come close to demonstrating that life can come from non-life. It's entirely just as 'unfalsifiable' as the belief that there must be some grand design or intelligence behind it all. And not everything is falsifiable, as you well know. When you feel appreciation for something beautiful, or feel love, can that be falsified in an experiment or lab? Obviously not, yet those feelings are very real to you. You know they exist.
Here's the thing. Perhaps it is not the God of the bible per se that is our Creator, but ultimately it makes more sense to me to believe that something cannot come from nothing. And since the 'something' on this planet is just so incredibly complex and bears the hallmarks of design, then I am forced to believe that the great original 'cause', whatever it is, must exist.
If I walk into an art gallery and see a painting, it matters not that I don't know a single thing about the painter or who he/she was, or when they lived, whether they were good or bad, whatever, it doesn't matter a jot. I am still forced to acknowledge that that painting was created. It had a designer. It is just the same with a belief in God. Perhaps who 'God' is, this ultimate 'cause', is really is just a mystery after all and the bible should not be taken quite so literally, but that doesn't change the fact that there must be some intelligence behind it all. It's just simple cause and effect.
Both are ultimately articles of faith. It's just that belief in some kind of original intelligent design is a little bit less of an article of faith to me than belief in absolutely nothing.
tetrapod.sapien

yadda,
When you boil it down evolution insists that ultimately everything developed from a huge explosion that came from basically nothing.
no. please get your theories straight. you are speaking of big bang theory, not evolution. should i still continue on? ... oh, yes, i see that i should i guess...
And I see that you cannot be bothered offering a proper critical refutation of that article on genetic mutations that I posted.
you obviously didn't read my entire post. i already told you why....
The ultimate 'cause' for evolutionists is the big bang, billions of years ago, triggered by something that evolutionists have no idea about.
again, not true. there is the big bang theory. then for the start of life on earth there is the abiogenesis theory. and then for how life came to be in this amount of bio-diversity, we have the theory of evolution. please learn at least the theory of evolution before critiquing it.
Evolutionists put their faith in a whole raft of things that are then said to have occurred over eons of time.
again, not true. the evidence in support of evolution is large. like a mountain, except figurative. i wouldn't want you saying that evolution is a mountain now...
Their God really is 'billions of years of time and blind chance'.
as much as you may like a god involved in this theory, i am sorry to say that there is no god involved in this theory. OH! sorry, is that your problem with it?
Yet because God has been 'silent' in man's affairs for just a few millennia they conclude that therefore there is no God.
and you know this because you have some evidence that he interacted with us and our affairs at some point in time? well, please, do provide it for us. while you are at it, make sure to collect James Randi's one million dollar prize for anyone who can prove the existence of *anything* supernatural. or did you get this idea from the bible? huh. and you have the audacity to critique the theory of evolution still? okaydokee. been there done that, when i was a jehobah's witness.
They are quite willing to blindly put their faith in billions of years of time where matter and highly complex lifef orms are said to have developed from a giant explosion, yet they scoff at the idea of a God that communicated with humans just a couple of millennia ago.
again, sorry, but there is no faith involved in evolution. that's why atheists like it. i hope that doesn't put you off from it. so, lets just recap so far here, shall we? evolution: lot's of evidence in support of the theory. much work done by many many brilliant scientists. the theory of evolution is used in vaccine science, and you probably still get vaccines. okay. creationism/god: no evidence for the existence of god. evidence for creationism fits many times more parsimoniously (look it up!) with evolution than creationism. so at this point i ask: do you have a hidden motive in rejecting evolution? or is it just incredulity? if it's the later, it is easily over come by just studying the theory a bit. okay? kay then.
They have proven nothing in laboratories.
you must still be going on about abiogenesis. let's talk evolution, shall we? still care to make the same statement? please don't make me do this to you.
Evolutionists like to imagine that their theory is falsifiable, but the reality is they have failed to do that.
while you're at it, put down the william paley books, and look up scientific method, and how falsifiablity is involved in that. from your comments, it's obvious you have not done this.
After decades and decades they have totally failed to provide even one proper example, either through the fossil record or produced in a laboratory of one species definitely change to another.
false. as sagan said, please provide your evidence for this extraordinary claim, or stop lying.
They have so far completely failed to even come close to demonstrating that life can come from non-life. It's entirely just as 'unfalsifiable' as the belief that there must be some grand design or intelligence behind it all.
abiogenesis. if you haven't got that point by now, just don't even bother with the rest of this post.
And not everything is falsifiable, as you well know.
yes, but the theory of evolution, along with all other scietific theories, are falsifiable. so where are we now?
When you feel appreciation for something beautiful, or feel love, can that be falsified in an experiment or lab? Obviously not, yet those feelings are very real to you. You know they exist.
okay, so you are saying that you reject evolution, and accept creationism because of a "feeling" you have? i am glad scientists do not work like this. we would all still be in 1342 A.D.

Here's the thing. Perhaps it is not the God of the bible per se that is our Creator, but ultimately it makes more sense to me to believe that something cannot come from nothing.
abiogenesis, or big bang. not evolution.
And since the 'something' on this planet is just so incredibly complex and bears the hallmarks of design, then I am forced to believe that the great original 'cause', whatever it is, must exist.
perhaps you can provide examples of this design and complexity. but please do study evolution. it explains how the complexity came to it's current form better than a designer. you will find that your incredulity disapears when you study it for real, and not what the WTS, or any of the books that they read represent it as. a good site to start at is www.talkorigins.org - you will find this site helpful indeed.

If I walk into an art gallery and see a painting, it matters not that I don't know a single thing about the painter or who he/she was, or when they lived, whether they were good or bad, whatever, it doesn't matter a jot. I am still forced to acknowledge that that painting was created. It had a designer.
yes. this is the same as the "every house has a builder" illustration the society uses. of course, you would need to study genetics to understand why this argument falls apart. but basically, there is a difference between a computer program, that simply executes it's algorithms, and a blue print a builder uses to build a house, or the method/technique that an artist uses to paint a picture. both can produce complex things. one via a blue print, and the other via algorithms. genomes are computer programs. this is well understood. they execute, mutations arise *within populations* of individuals over time, not in individuals themselves, ergo evolution. i am really not in the mood the explain the whole thing here, but if you are interested in learning about this more in depth, The Blind Watchmaker by Sir Richard Dawkins is the best place to start, it is widely agreed.
It is just the same with a belief in God. Perhaps who 'God' is, this ultimate 'cause', is really is just a mystery after all and the bible should not be taken quite so literally, but that doesn't change the fact that there must be some intelligence behind it all. It's just simple cause and effect.
okay, so there is no evidence for this hypothesis, right? and it is also unfalsifiable, right? the same way that santa claus is unfalsifiable? pretty much. there is a chance that santa exists, i admit, but it is impossible to say for sure, since no one has ever seen him, and the presents that end up under xmas trees are more parsimoniously explained with the observed phenomena of parents putting them under the tree in the middle of the night.

Both are ultimately articles of faith.
not true, again. when will this madness end? one has a mountain of evidence backing it up. i speak of the theory of evolution by natural cumulative selection. if you are unaware of it, there are many many many peer-reviewed biology, palentology, anthropology and gentics papers that can be purchase from Nature, or borrowed from many university libraries. there are good websites like talk origins that will introduce you to this mountain of evidence. it's all there. it's all available to you. close answersingenesis, and try something with a little fact behind it.
It's just that belief in some kind of original intelligent design is a little bit less of an article of faith to me than belief in absolutely nothing.
um, not true again. if you believe in something for which there is no shred of evidence, then THAT is faith. if you choose not to believe in something for which there is no single shred of empirical evidence, then that is NOT faith. i am sorry. but it's not and article of faith. what you just said is, again, comparable to accusing someone who doesn't believe in santa claus as not beleiving in him based on his faith that he doesn't exist. come on! tetrapod.exasperated
hooberus

i have already responded to many answersingenesis threads on this board in the last year. it's always the same story. i read it. i find the fallacy contained in the implicit assumption of the article. i shed light on it, and it's motives. then i move on to the technical stuff, explaining why it is a misrepresentation of evolution, and why what they are saying flies in the face of modern biology, or paleontology or anthropology or genetics. then i leave some smart-alec remarks, because i need to laugh a little as the previous exercise is always extremely boring. the creationists either do not understand/comprehend the replies, or they will not admit that they are cornered because they think jesus is watching, and frankly they have more allegiance to him than some atheistic human. and i am tired of doing this. tired of it, because i am not an evangelist for science. and i haven't even done half as much as alanF or abaddon or funky derek or sng or leolaia or midget. but it just gets tiring because it is a big old merry-go-round with creationists. you respond to one answersingenesis article, and a day later they post a different one. the evolutionists do all the work, and the creationists just sit back a chuckle at their impressive cut and paste abilities. and then 4 months later, the same article appears again, and the merry-go-round resumes.

good night,

TS
Here are some thread dialogues that I have had with tetrapod that readers can view to decide the truth of tetrapods claims: http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/99116/1.ashx http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/7/100588/1.ashx
tetrapod.sapien

thanks for that brother hoob. LOL. you pretty much proved my point with those links.
i will include them again here in case you choose to remove them from your post: http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/99116/1.ashx http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/7/100588/1.ashx it must be obvious after looking at those threads as to why it is exasperating to deal with creationists. maybe not to creationists, but hopefully to some lurkers.

TS
Will Power

I am not a JW, but what prevented me from getting sucked in (other than the obvious)
was like Almost Dave said - the Lies.
The outright ones - claiming one thing when another is true
The lies by omission - like 1914 has always been the date
The misquotes - when the real context is known, it is actually opposite.
Saying onething, doing/preaching another - and the plain speaking out of both sides of their mouth.
Docrtine is interpretation.
Lies are provable - hence the tear down of Quotes website.

This GIVES God a BAD NAME - doesn't VINDICATE it!

The quotes about abhoring child abuse but reporting it only in states that require it MAKE ME SICK.
I could not ever be affiliated with a group who's leaders have this attitude.
I even have a hard time being married to one - but I try not to think about it.

I predict his thread will be a long one.
wp
tetrapod.sapien

yadda,
i found a free online version of the Blind Watchmaker by Sir Richard Dawkins for you:
http://www.evolutionary.tripod.com/dawkins_blindwatchmaker_1996_full.pdf
regards,
TS
james_woods

This may be a little different from most folks first realization of something wrong, but it was really my first big doubt and disillusionment:
I had a comparitive religions professor challenge me on the Jehovah name all over the new testament. I decided to prove him wrong and started a research project about it. What I found out, of course, was that they just made up their mind to put it here and there and did not have any sound reasons. And to think that they were telling us that all other bible translators throughout history were mistranslating it to HIDE the name!!!! This was way back in 1969.
I also never believed the 7000 year creative days and had decided that the 1975 was hopeless long before it came and went. The thinking heart and evil brain stupidity was also a big issue.
But, finding out that they had misrepresented the bible itself was the start of all the other realizations.

What was "it" that opened your eyes?

Share this