It could easily be built using a collaborative wiki, allowing (vetted) people to add pages themselves.
skeptic2
JoinedPosts by skeptic2
-
2
Why not a JW version of talkorigins.org?
by skeptic2 inafter seeing the latest 607 thread, i wonder whether it might be a good idea to start a site that collects this kind of information (if it doesn't already exist), similar to what talkorigins.org does for evolution.
maybe call it www.talkwitnesses.org or something... and it's purpose would be something like (adapted from talkorigins' description): .
the talk witnesses archive is a collection of articles and essays.
-
-
-
2
Why not a JW version of talkorigins.org?
by skeptic2 inafter seeing the latest 607 thread, i wonder whether it might be a good idea to start a site that collects this kind of information (if it doesn't already exist), similar to what talkorigins.org does for evolution.
maybe call it www.talkwitnesses.org or something... and it's purpose would be something like (adapted from talkorigins' description): .
the talk witnesses archive is a collection of articles and essays.
-
-
skeptic2
After seeing the latest 607 thread, I wonder whether it might be a good idea to start a site that collects this kind of information (if it doesn't already exist), similar to what talkorigins.org does for evolution.
Maybe call it www.talkwitnesses.org or something... and it's purpose would be something like (adapted from talkorigins' description):
The Talk Witnesses Archive is a collection of articles and essays. The primary reason for this archive's existence is to provide mainstream responses to the beliefs and frequently rebutted assertions of Jehovah's Witnesses. -
601
For those not sick to death of talking about this...607 BCE
by Swamboozled injust got this link sent to me by my sister in law and i just keeping staring at it trying to decide where to start.
i know that arguing with a jw is like throwing miracle wheat in the wind...but i want a comeback!!!
http://www.2001translation.com/587_or_607.htm
-
-
skeptic2
This thread is great! It's interesting to see how these WT arguments can be so effectively dismantled.
Do you believe God's word the Bible or the conclusions of secular historians based on Egyptian records?
Err... I'll take option 2.
Once you decide that then you can also decide do I believe the Bible based 607 or the conclusions made by secular historians that 587 is correct?Err... option 2 again please.
What do I win?
-
113
if an atheist does something good...
by DannyBloem in.
if an atheist leads good life with high moral standards, because he choice to do so and thinks for logic it is a good thing, does it not mean much more then when a theist does the same, because his gods tells him to do it?
what's your thoughs on this?
-
-
skeptic2
If a sky-god has implanted the concepts of good and evil into the human psyche (this is beginning to sound like Scientology!) - does he do it at a certain age, or at birth, or is in some kind of interal 'spirit'?
Because very young children do not understand these concepts (if you are interested in the research try a google search for 'moral development'). I guess the sky-god introduces the concepts to the child slowly, over time, and it is this that fool us into thinking the child is learning these concepts from interacting with the world?
I can't answer the question of where my morality comes from beyond the phrase 'genetics and life experience', because I have very basic knowledge in the field of moral development. -
113
if an atheist does something good...
by DannyBloem in.
if an atheist leads good life with high moral standards, because he choice to do so and thinks for logic it is a good thing, does it not mean much more then when a theist does the same, because his gods tells him to do it?
what's your thoughs on this?
-
-
skeptic2
DD - apologies, I directed my comment at you, when they were more a reaction to other things said in this thread.
-
113
if an atheist does something good...
by DannyBloem in.
if an atheist leads good life with high moral standards, because he choice to do so and thinks for logic it is a good thing, does it not mean much more then when a theist does the same, because his gods tells him to do it?
what's your thoughs on this?
-
-
-
113
if an atheist does something good...
by DannyBloem in.
if an atheist leads good life with high moral standards, because he choice to do so and thinks for logic it is a good thing, does it not mean much more then when a theist does the same, because his gods tells him to do it?
what's your thoughs on this?
-
-
skeptic2
Differential reproduction (or "survival of the fittest") very likely helped in establishing our cooperative behaviours etc.
I have no problem with qualified, broad statements such as above, but as with all things, it's worth maintaining a skeptical attitude especially to the more specific hypotheses. Some (especially media) sources seem inclined to treat every EP hypothesis as fact. But I'm getting off topic...
-
21
Arrogance? When will we humans learn we are not the center of everything?
by mavie inwe humans are an arrogant, anthropocentric species.
ptolemy posited that the earth was the center of the universe.
once copernicus began to show that the sun, not earth, was at the center of our solar system, some still believed that the sun at least was the center of the universe.
-
-
skeptic2
It's such a common misconception that evolution is somehow "striving" or "progressing" toward humanity or that humans are somehow the final, ultimate end to the process of evolution.
Thats a great example, but I thought that one had pretty much been put to bed? Does anyone still say/believe this?
-
21
Arrogance? When will we humans learn we are not the center of everything?
by mavie inwe humans are an arrogant, anthropocentric species.
ptolemy posited that the earth was the center of the universe.
once copernicus began to show that the sun, not earth, was at the center of our solar system, some still believed that the sun at least was the center of the universe.
-
-
skeptic2
From Nasa Science zone
October 2, 2003: Scientists hunting for alien life can relate to Goldilocks.
For many years they looked around the solar system. Mercury and Venus were too hot. Mars and the outer planets were too cold. Only Earth was just right for life, they thought. Our planet has liquid water, a breathable atmosphere, a suitable amount of sunshine. Perfect.
Right: Earth photographed by the crew of Apollo 17.
It didn't have to be that way. If Earth were a little closer to the sun it might be like hot choking Venus; a little farther, like cold arid Mars. Somehow, though, we ended up in just the right place with just the right ingredients for life to flourish. Researchers of the 1970s scratched their heads and said we were in "the Goldilocks Zone."
The Goldilocks Zone seemed a remarkably small region of space. It didn't even include the whole Earth. All life known in those days was confined to certain limits: no colder than Antarctica (penguins), no hotter than scalding water (desert lizards), no higher than the clouds (eagles), no lower than a few mines (deep mine microbes).
In the past 30 years, however, our knowledge of life in extreme environments has exploded. Scientists have found microbes in nuclear reactors, microbes that love acid, microbes that swim in boiling-hot water. Whole ecosystems have been discovered around deep sea vents where sunlight never reaches and the emerging vent-water is hot enough to melt lead.
The Goldilocks Zone is bigger than we thought.
To find out how big, researchers are going deeper, climbing higher, and looking in the nooks and crannies of our own planet. Searching for life in the Universe is one of NASA's most important research activities. Finding extreme life here on Earth tells us what kind of conditions might suit life "out there."
NASA scientists Richard Hoover and Elena Pikuta are among the hunters. This month they've announced a new species of extreme-loving microorganism, Tindallia californiensis, found in California's Mono Lake.
Left: Elena Pikuta and Richard Hoover in their laboratory at the National Space Science and Technology Center (NSSTC).
Mono Lake is an extremely salty and alkaline body of water. It is almost 3 times saltier than sea water and has a pH of 10, about the same as Windex TM , a household glass cleaner. (For comparison, a pH of 7 is neutral; 14 corresponds to pure lye.) Surprisingly, though, Mono Lake supports a wide array of life from microbes, to plankton, to small shrimp. T. californiensis is right at home there. It thrives in highly alkaline conditions (pH 8-10.5) and at salt concentrations near 20%.
Earlier this year Hoover and Pikuta announced another strange microbe: Spirochaeta americana. They found it living with T. californiensis and perhaps hundreds of other microbial species in Mono Lake mud samples. Finding new species in this abundant collection of microbial life is a detective story worthy of Perry Mason or Hercule Poirot.
"Collecting samples from the muddy bottom of this lake and keeping them alive can be tricky business," says Hoover. "These species are killed by the presence of oxygen, so great care must be taken to protect them."
Below: A false-color electron micrograph image of Tindallia californiensis. Credit: R. Hoover, NASA.
"The battery of tests required to identify a particular species in a sample is extensive," says Pikuta. "For an organism to be identified and then recognized as a new species, it must be completely understood. This includes identifying its growth requirements and metabolism, colonial habit, cellular characteristics, DNA and genome properties, and sensitivity to antibiotics for detailed comparison with other known life forms."
Before a life form can be considered a valid new genus or species, it must be deposited in two separate International Collections of Microorganisms and a scientific paper describing all new features of the organism must be either published in the International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology or, if published in another journal, it must be verified by the International Committee on Systematics of Prokaryotes (ICSP), the clearinghouse for bacterial species.
Once a microbe is finally accepted as a valid new species, says Hoover, the years of intense labwork and wallowing in smelly lake mud suddenly become worthwhile. The Goldilocks Zone gets a little bigger. And life "out there" seems more likely than ever.
-
21
Arrogance? When will we humans learn we are not the center of everything?
by mavie inwe humans are an arrogant, anthropocentric species.
ptolemy posited that the earth was the center of the universe.
once copernicus began to show that the sun, not earth, was at the center of our solar system, some still believed that the sun at least was the center of the universe.
-
-
skeptic2
Also, the Milky Way has best size, type, and mass distribution for physical life to exist. did life choose our planet for perfect conditions, or are those conditions perfect because this was the planet on which life evolved?
Discussions of life on other planets invariably comes down to discussions of the ways in which conditions on this planet are particularly suited to life. For example, we are the 'right' distance from the sun (temperature range), we have the right chemical components in the correct proportions to build organic molecules, water may exist here in all three states and we have a 'protective shield' of Ozone.
Which rather gives the impression that there was a pre-existing idea of life, which came along, like Goldilocks, and went from planet to planet. "Mercury? no, too hot.. Mars? too cold.. Ah! Earth! Just right!".
Rather, life on Earth evolved to those specific conditions because that's what it had to work with. After all, that protective ozone shield is only really possible once there's free oxygen floating around in the atmosphere, and that comes from photosynthesising organisms, ie: life. Prior to that, that mutation-causing radiation is good - a high rate of mutation is advantageous if you're trying to evolve rapidly. With more mutation comes more variation, and hence a higher ability to adapt to changing conditions, to radiate new forms of life. Once things are pretty established, up goes the shield.
Which is not to say you must subscribe to an Earth-based origin for life. After all, discussing evolution is not in fact the same thing as discussing abiogenesis, the origin of life. It is still entirely possible that some form of life arrived here from somewhere else in the universe, but it would have been extremely primitive 'life' and its subsequent adaptation to life on this planet shows us not how our planet is perfectly suited to life, but rather how well suited life has become to conditions on this planet.
