Posts by slimboyfat

18

Books are not dying out and this is not the reason for the WT turning to tablets

by slimboyfat in

there's a popular misconception that books in general are in terminal decline, that this is the reason the wt organisation has turned to tablets instead of print, and this in turn has created a financial crisis for the organisation which traditionally relied upon publishing books for income.

this is wrong on a number of levels.

firstly physical books are not in terminal decline, they are as popular as ever with consumers.

slimboyfat

Following fastJehu's link on the previous page I came across this letter from the Society in 1991.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B4oXVPm4nrmfNnkwVUZwQXVHNGM/view

This was one year after the new "donation arrangement" had been introduced to replace charges for the literature. Notice at the end of the letter it makes the comment:

Although funds received for the worldwide work have diminished somewhat over the last year, we are confident that Jehovah will continue to bless these arrangements.

In my recollection (limited as I was young) brothers were pretty good about donating the right amount for the literature for the first few years (they kept a sheet with prices behind the desk) and this gradually diminished over time. So if the Society was already noticing a reduction in donations within the first year, then we can only assume that it got even worse in the following years.

18

The coordinator of cong visited me last night

by Chook in

he ran into me a work and asked could he come , i said only if you're by yourself and don't wear company garb.

3 hours later and i might as well talked to myself.

i used every illustration and persuasive argument.

slimboyfat

I said if you want me before your kangaroo court Geoffrey Jackson needs to be dealt with first.

It's good you held something back, otherwise he might have concluded you're apostate.

191

Evolution is a Fact - Index of Parts 1 - 40

by cofty in

#1 protein functional redundancy comparing the sequences of amino acids in ubiquitous proteins confirms the relationship between all living things..

#2 dna functional redundancy comparison of the dna that codes for the amino acids of ubiquitous proteins predicts the tree of life with an astonishing degree of accuracy..

#3 ervs endogenous retroviruses that infected our ancestors are found in the same place of the genome of our closest primate cousins..

slimboyfat

Your thread claims "evolution is a fact". I was discussing whether evolution is a fact. This isn't nit picking, it's the central question.

As usual you are the one who dragged up a flat earth and worms. And ironically blame me for responding.

191

Evolution is a Fact - Index of Parts 1 - 40

by cofty in

#1 protein functional redundancy comparing the sequences of amino acids in ubiquitous proteins confirms the relationship between all living things..

#2 dna functional redundancy comparison of the dna that codes for the amino acids of ubiquitous proteins predicts the tree of life with an astonishing degree of accuracy..

#3 ervs endogenous retroviruses that infected our ancestors are found in the same place of the genome of our closest primate cousins..

slimboyfat

As the discussion shows: I was happy talking about evolution. It was you who cast up flat earth, postmodernism and worms. As usual.

191

Evolution is a Fact - Index of Parts 1 - 40

by cofty in

#1 protein functional redundancy comparing the sequences of amino acids in ubiquitous proteins confirms the relationship between all living things..

#2 dna functional redundancy comparison of the dna that codes for the amino acids of ubiquitous proteins predicts the tree of life with an astonishing degree of accuracy..

#3 ervs endogenous retroviruses that infected our ancestors are found in the same place of the genome of our closest primate cousins..

slimboyfat

Why is the second self-evidently true?

And if all you can offer is ridicule what makes you better than a medieval believer ridiculing disbelief in God?

191

Evolution is a Fact - Index of Parts 1 - 40

by cofty in

#1 protein functional redundancy comparing the sequences of amino acids in ubiquitous proteins confirms the relationship between all living things..

#2 dna functional redundancy comparison of the dna that codes for the amino acids of ubiquitous proteins predicts the tree of life with an astonishing degree of accuracy..

#3 ervs endogenous retroviruses that infected our ancestors are found in the same place of the genome of our closest primate cousins..

slimboyfat

Yes of course. I do not believe that "man is the measure of all things".

As I see it there are various options:

1. Objectivity is defined by how God views the world.

2. Objectivity is defined by how humans view the world.

3. Objectivity is defined by how worms view the world.

Cofty apparently thinks the first has been disproved, the second is self-evidently true, and the third is ridiculous.

Personally I think they're all problematic, including the second, which just happens the be the current orthodoxy. That doesn't make it true. And when Cofty is challenged to prove it all he can do is resort to ridicule. In the same way a medieval believer might ridicule anyone who expresses doubt in God.

If anything I am leaning toward the first option as the most viable.

191

Evolution is a Fact - Index of Parts 1 - 40

by cofty in

#1 protein functional redundancy comparing the sequences of amino acids in ubiquitous proteins confirms the relationship between all living things..

#2 dna functional redundancy comparison of the dna that codes for the amino acids of ubiquitous proteins predicts the tree of life with an astonishing degree of accuracy..

#3 ervs endogenous retroviruses that infected our ancestors are found in the same place of the genome of our closest primate cousins..

slimboyfat

As far as we know that's true. But it doesn't mean new information won't necessitate revision.

Incidentally the insertion of the phrase "or more" means a creationist could agree with the statement too.

191

Evolution is a Fact - Index of Parts 1 - 40

by cofty in

#1 protein functional redundancy comparing the sequences of amino acids in ubiquitous proteins confirms the relationship between all living things..

#2 dna functional redundancy comparison of the dna that codes for the amino acids of ubiquitous proteins predicts the tree of life with an astonishing degree of accuracy..

#3 ervs endogenous retroviruses that infected our ancestors are found in the same place of the genome of our closest primate cousins..

slimboyfat

Yes all of that makes sense of course. If other roots and branches were discovered this would be incorporated into the theory and evolution as a story adapts. But that is rather my point.

You started by saying evolution is a fact. I said it's more complicated than evolution being a fact. You said okay but even if the details of evolution change, common ancestry of all life is a fact. But when I point out this fact may also be subject to revision you agree but insist this doesn't alter the fact of evolution.

Which is problematic because it produces assertions that are in tension with one another:

1. The details of evolution may change but common ancestry of all life is a fact.

2. We may discover that not all life has a common ancestor but this doesn't alter the fact of evolution.

So what is an unalterable fact? Apparently neither evolution nor common ancestry of all life, because as soon as you focus on one the other becomes unstable.

191

Evolution is a Fact - Index of Parts 1 - 40

by cofty in

#1 protein functional redundancy comparing the sequences of amino acids in ubiquitous proteins confirms the relationship between all living things..

#2 dna functional redundancy comparison of the dna that codes for the amino acids of ubiquitous proteins predicts the tree of life with an astonishing degree of accuracy..

#3 ervs endogenous retroviruses that infected our ancestors are found in the same place of the genome of our closest primate cousins..

slimboyfat

You don't think it's possible that scientists are mistaken about the evidence proving that all life on Earth that we know about has a common ancestor?

So first: evolution is a fact.

Then: the central fact of evolution is that all life shares a common ancestor.

Then: but it's possible we may find life on Earth that doesn't share that ancestor.

Nevertheless: evolution is a fact,

191

Evolution is a Fact - Index of Parts 1 - 40

by cofty in

#1 protein functional redundancy comparing the sequences of amino acids in ubiquitous proteins confirms the relationship between all living things..

#2 dna functional redundancy comparison of the dna that codes for the amino acids of ubiquitous proteins predicts the tree of life with an astonishing degree of accuracy..

#3 ervs endogenous retroviruses that infected our ancestors are found in the same place of the genome of our closest primate cousins..

slimboyfat

So you rule out the discovery of extant life (such as at the bottom of the ocean) with a different origin?

Current scientific thinking is that DNA and other evidence shows that all life on Earth that we know about shares a common ancestor. But might new information refute this firm assumption? Maybe not, but is it impossible? Is it even scientific to rule out the possibility?