doogie

Joined

• started 47 topics
• posted 915 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by doogie

• 
  9

  Buddhist / Taoist / Christian Hybrid

  by EvilForce in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  so when i have to explain what i believe to people and how it can coinside with one another i must mention the jesus sutras.

  they're a group of teachings that go back centuries.

  a group of christian monks left persia to enter china in the year 635, and established a small christian community inside china.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  doogie

  EF:

  you know, i remember you mentioning this on a thread the other day and i seriously was going to PM you to ask you to elaborate. thanks
• 
  43

  Creationism - is purely a myth that is untestable - maybe not!

  by Qcmbr in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  i've been doing my homework having been stung by the vehemence of the evolutionary believers - i've got some interesting things that maybe science in the classroom could approach.

  some premises - .

  evolution is only a theory - its not a fact any more than newtonian physics was a fact.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  doogie

  Doogie your post was great too !!!

  ah...jeez. honestly, that wasn't just a plea for affection. ("love me! love me!") but, shucks...thanks man...
• 
  67

  Explain you religion/beliefs in a nutshell

  by devinsmom in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  lately i have been pondering my lack of a belief system.

  i think that being a jw really turned me off to believing in anything since it was all crammed down my throat.. i have been feeling a need to believe in something.

  i think i believe that something created us but not sure if it was one god or many.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  doogie

  i will believe in god when he proves he exists. until then, i believe in him as much as i believe in leprechauns...

  i believe that humans have the potential for great good and great evil, but there's a better chance for good in the logical mind than the illogical.

  before i believe i must have proof.

  like someone else said, the bible condones the taking of virgins as spoils of war...even if it WAS inspired by a deity, it's no deity that i would feel good about worshipping. (the fact that the bible clearly isn't inspired helps)

  ya, in logic's name, amen.

  all hail logic!
• 
  43

  Creationism - is purely a myth that is untestable - maybe not!

  by Qcmbr in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  i've been doing my homework having been stung by the vehemence of the evolutionary believers - i've got some interesting things that maybe science in the classroom could approach.

  some premises - .

  evolution is only a theory - its not a fact any more than newtonian physics was a fact.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  doogie

  Great post Abbadon...you did a much better job than I could have...

  Me too. I could have saved 20 minutes

  shoot...at least you didn't go through the trouble of writing it twice...
• 
  43

  Creationism - is purely a myth that is untestable - maybe not!

  by Qcmbr in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  i've been doing my homework having been stung by the vehemence of the evolutionary believers - i've got some interesting things that maybe science in the classroom could approach.

  some premises - .

  evolution is only a theory - its not a fact any more than newtonian physics was a fact.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  doogie

  ok...let's try this again...
  

  Q:

  I do appreciate what you're trying to do, evaluate creationism as anything other than simply Anti-Evolution, but I think that it's just not possible (as others have already mentioned). It just seems like you're kind of grasping at straws here. (and you said you were going to avoid strawmen!)

  Many of the arguments you presented are the exact same predictions that we would expect if evolution was true:

  :Creation suggests that species cannot change from one species to another - this rule must hold for at least one species (ie even if one organism is shown to have not adapted from another that would be a proof for creation at least for that species.).

  evolution suggests the same. evolution does not predict that entire species "change" into another. Natural selection does not work on species but rather on individuals within a species. You could say that one species splits into 2, but it doesn't magically "change" into another.

  :It should be well nigh impossible to find transitional stages in the same fossil layer that show the eradication of species by adaptation into species found in the next geological layer (or even the same one)

  You will never find the idea of "eradication of species by adaptation" in evolutionary theory. Some people say, "if humans evolved, why are there still monkies?" but this betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution rather than a weakness of the theory itself. (as mentioned above)

  :9/ It must be possible to engineer the building blocks of life. It must be possible to create species that are mixtures of other species and that are viable and can produce offspring. Genetic engineering must be achievable using intelligent processes.

  :10/ It must be possible to show how ecosystems can be planned and engineerable. This must be tied to the ability to disperse any life forms across planet boundaries. Creation must have a provable dispersal system.

  if humans are able to "engineer the building blocks of life" and 'engineer ecosystems', how would that prove that a supernatural entity had to originally do these same things? I think this would rather disprove creationism.

  Also, the definition of "species" is a group of lifeforms that are able to produce viable offspring. Conversely, if 2 creatures are unable to produce offspring they are not of the same species. So, it is impossible, by definition, for members of 2 different species to interbreed.

  Are you saying that creationism would expect to see members of different species producing offspring?...because, umm...we don't. again, not a great argument FOR creation.

  :11/ The addition of genetic information must be almost impossibly difficult to do by natural mechanistic approaches. While genetic mutation can occur creation would expect that mutation process to struggle to add new material.

  so would evolution. that's why it takes millions of millions of years and the vast majority of mutations are harmful.

  :no new information must be observed entering the gentic code to produce a large scale change.

  This is also the case for evolution. Evolution would be disproved if we OBSERVED this. unless of course you live to be millions of years old...

  I?m not trying to jump down your throat, Q, I just wanted to point out that many of your arguments are actually the same predictions that we would expect to see if evolution was true.
• 
  43

  Creationism - is purely a myth that is untestable - maybe not!

  by Qcmbr in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  i've been doing my homework having been stung by the vehemence of the evolutionary believers - i've got some interesting things that maybe science in the classroom could approach.

  some premises - .

  evolution is only a theory - its not a fact any more than newtonian physics was a fact.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  doogie

  oh...you gotta be kidding me...

  i've been typing for about 20 minutes and now it's gone...

  jeez...
• 
  44

  Why do you post here?

  by seattleniceguy in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  for me, it's mainly the money and the women, i suppose.. no, but seriously, i was thinking the other day about why i post here.

  in september it will be two years since i left the organization.

  i don't much care for doctrinal debates anymore, and i usually pass on threads that are concerned with he-said-she-said kind of stuff inside the organization.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  doogie

  hey SNG,

  good post. my reasons are less altruistic. i've learned more here than anywhere else and i guess the more you read here the more likely you are to write as well. plus, this is the only place that i can freely associate (ugh...ugly word...interact) with so many other free-thinkers that demand proof before belief. the logic that certain posters here have is just awesome to me and helps me remember that i'm not crazy. (i live in the heart of texas for crying out loud...sanity is sometimes hard to come by)
• 
  85

  What did you want to be when you grew up?

  by whyamihere in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  as a child, what did you want to be, when you became an adult?

  if you could, would you want to go back in time, and become what you wanted to be in the first place?.

  as a child, i wanted to be a florist.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  doogie

  something involving chocolate and videogames.
• 
  17

  Evidence against Evolution part 1 (disparity before diversity)

  by hooberus in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  according to the evolutionary teaching (of the descent of all life via universal common ancestry) diversity in the fossil record should precede disparity.

  ("disparity refers to the extent of morphological divergence among members of a group, while diversity refers to the number of taxa within a group.

  " jim gibson geoscience research institute http://www.grisda.org/origins/23068.htm).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  doogie

  SNG:

  hey! you should get into advertising! you can point out the nutritional benefits of Mammals (or whatever), write a book, get booked on Oprah...this is gonna be HUGE...

  It would be like if we suddenly wiped out all life on earth today, and there was a one-in-a-billion chance of any particular individual being discovered later. Later archaeologists would probably find a couple species of monkeys, a couple cat species, a couple bird species, etc. It is more likely that species would be missing from the discoveries (they are smaller targets) than phyla. Therefore, a greater number of phyla would be discovered, and a smaller number of species relative to the phyla.

  i liked this. great way to put it, very simple.
• 
  24

  Know any Victims of MORE than One Cult?

  by GetBusyLiving in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  ever heard of anyone leaving the jw's and becoming, say, a scientologist?

  or a morman?

  or a member of any other crazy cultish org?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  doogie

  Have to confess I don't understand who is capable of getting out JW and going to another... or am I still a blind with JW!?

  to go along with what GBL said, i think especially for those of us that were raised a JW, that structure and dependency is the only way we understand how to function after leaving. it takes time to sit back and really figure out our own moral code and our own personal opinions on things. some don't take that step and crave the dependency they used to have so they find it elsewhere.