Disillusioned JW

Joined

• started 27 topics
• posted 2,027 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by Disillusioned JW

• 
  86

  Is most of the promotion of creationism, not just that by the WT, charlatanism?

  by Disillusioned JW in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  is most of the promotion of creationism, not just that by the wt, charlatanism?.

  https://www.fullmoon.nu/sources.bak/chapter%2010/part%202/gish%20exposed.html [which has an article called "creationism: bad science or immoral pseudoscience?

  - (an expose of creationist dr. duane gish)"] says the following.. 'a look at the "scientific" creationist movement and a close examination of the tactics of a well-known and influential creationist will reveal that the creation "science" movement gains much of its strength through the use of distortion and scientifically unethical tactics.. .... with the facts explained and the lawsuits won, scientists declared victory and returned to their labs and offices.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Disillusioned JW

  hooberus, I notice that you wrote the following."Also countless (trillions) of universes are now another part of the evolutionary theory smorgasbord. These are conjured up to try to provide a rescue device for mathematical probabilities that point to the universe or origin of life being designed." As a result of scientific literature I read, I don't think that the concept of the multi-verse was thought up for the reason you state, though a number of people do appeal to the multi-verse idea to refute the idea of the universe being fine tuned and the idea of the universe being designed. The discovery magazine article which you linked to is interesting.
  
• 
  86

  Is most of the promotion of creationism, not just that by the WT, charlatanism?

  by Disillusioned JW in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  is most of the promotion of creationism, not just that by the wt, charlatanism?.

  https://www.fullmoon.nu/sources.bak/chapter%2010/part%202/gish%20exposed.html [which has an article called "creationism: bad science or immoral pseudoscience?

  - (an expose of creationist dr. duane gish)"] says the following.. 'a look at the "scientific" creationist movement and a close examination of the tactics of a well-known and influential creationist will reveal that the creation "science" movement gains much of its strength through the use of distortion and scientifically unethical tactics.. .... with the facts explained and the lawsuits won, scientists declared victory and returned to their labs and offices.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Disillusioned JW

  hooberus, when I made the post (on page 6 of this topic) that Haldane and Dawkins said that Precambrian rabbits would disprove evolution, it was not just to say that they think such. It was also because for me it would be a huge problem for the idea of biological evolution being a fact and of the idea of the correctness of the prevailing Modern Synthesis theory (and its proposed extension) of biological evolution being correct. [I would also consider it as further disproof of the Genesis chapter one account of creation, since that account says that the first land animals were created after the first fish and not before the first fish.] Regarding the "extended evolutionary synthesis" see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extended_evolutionary_synthesis . hooberus, you might appreciate an expect of that extension of the theory, for the article says the following. 'Notably, Dr. Müller concluded from this research that Natural Selection has no way of explaining speciation, saying: “selection has no innovative capacity...the generative and the ordering aspects of morphological evolution are thus absent from evolutionary theory.” '
  

  For me, the prevailing known fossil record is a big pat of the evidence proving biological evolution. The evidence from it (including the radiometric dating of fossils and of geologic layers) combined with the evidence from comparative anatomy and from biogeography are sufficient to convince me that biological evolution happened, and the modern evidence from DNA (showing common ancestry) makes the proof much stronger. But if fossil rabbits were found in the Precambrian and without any other vertebrate fossils (even of fish) found in the Precambrian and without any fossils of land plants found in the Precambrian, that would be extremely perplexing for me and a huge problem to me. Not only would it be very hard to make sense of from the point of view of biological evolution, but it would also be perplexing as to how could the rabbits (even if specially created by a god) survive without vegetation on land to eat? The rabbits could not live under water and I don't think they could dive into water to eat submerged plants without drowning. Perhaps they could swim and eat plants which were sticking up out of the water; I do not know about that. But they would have to spend much of life in the water, and it would be very hard for me to believe that Precambrian rabbits would spend much of their life in the water, hence I think there would be a contradiction.
  

  If fossil rabbits were found in Precambrian without any other vertebrate fossils (even of fish) and without any fossils of land plants also being found in the Precambrian that would be extremely strange. While it would not disprove the idea of the evolution of life which came into existence after the Precambrian, it would make it extremely hard to believe that the Precambrian fossil rabbits evolved from life of other genera than the genera of the rabbits. To me it would be strong evidence against the evolution of the Precambrian rabbits. I think that because I strongly believe that fossil record is not incomplete in regards to not showing the existence of fish, reptiles, non-Rabbit mammals, and land plants in the Precambrian. I think the absence of fossil evidence of such is evidence that such life did exist in the Precambrian, and thus if fossil rabbits were found in the Precambrian it would be very hard to explain how those rabbits came to exist by an evolutionary process.
  

  Fossils of Precambrian rabbits would cause me to wonder if humans from the future time traveled to the Precambrian and brought many rabbits with them to that time. But it would be extremely hard to also accept that idea. But perhaps if Precambrian fossils were only a very recent discovery, then perhaps I would think that fossils of Precambrian fossils of other mammals and of other vertebrates would be found, including ones which would show transitional features supporting the idea that the Precambrian rabbits evolved from other general of Precambrian animals.
  

  Regarding the https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Falsifiability_of_evolution saying "First of all, it must be remembered that the fossil record is merely supporting evidence for evolution ... Indeed, natural selection was initially formulated without the aid of fossil record, and subsequent DNA evidence can stand completely without it", I say the following.

  It is true that the fossil record is supporting evidence for biological evolution, but prior to the discovery of the genomes of many species it was also key evidence for evolution (though some evolutionist scientists during the 1970s -1995 said the fossil record did not prove evolution, while admitting that other scientific evidence did collectively prove evolution). When I read scientific literature printed before 1995 I see the fossil record as providing a great deal of the evidence for evolution, though I wish it provided provided many more examples of animals with transitional features. Fortunately after 1995 many more examples of fossils of animals with transitional features have been discovered. Now we can see a clear progression of transitional features from fish without paired fins, to fish with paired fins, to fish with lobe fines, to fish with proto-legs and proto-feet, and to true amphibians.We also we can see some of the stages of progression of transitional features from amphibians to reptiles and from amphibians to mammal-like synapsids (formerly called mammal-like reptiles and sometimes still called such), and from mammal-like synapsids to true mammals. Likewise we see fossils of animals with transitional features between other taxonomic groups, including of non-avian feathered dinosaurs, of whales with legs and feet, and of that which is commonly called ape-men.
  

  I am not sure that the claim of "natural selection was initially formulated without the aid of fossil record" is true. Darwin became convinced of evolution (which he and other people initially called transmutation of the species) largely from a combination of the fossil record and of comparative anatomy. For Darwin, another major factor was biogeography. Darwin started seriously thinking that evolution was true from his contemplation of the fossils he discovered during his voyages on the Beagle and from his observations of biogeography during his voyages on the Beagle. He came to believe in transmutation of the species (evolution) before he thought up the theory of natural selection as the primary mechanism of evolution. Such is seen in the notes which Darwin made (if my memory is correct about such).

  hooberus, since you wrote 'So we see that evolutionary theory is flexible enough to accommodate “Precambrian rabbits” ' and because you wrote 'ReMine documents how natural selection is composed of numerous mechanisms operating discordantly over a complex “fitness terrain” ', I think think you might find interesting the following words from https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsfs.2017.0015 (in an article called "Why an extended evolutionary synthesis is necessary").

  "The theory of evolution is the fundamental conceptual framework of biology all scientific explanations of living phenomena must be consistent with. As it does not describe a universal law regarding a single natural phenomenon, such as gravity, but rather the principles of organismal change over time, based on the highly complex inputs and interactions of a multiplicity of different factors, evolutionary theory cannot be expected to remain static but is subject to change in the light of new empirical evidence.

  ... Evolutionary biology, as practised today, does not represent a single coherent approach but includes sets of different topics and research programmes. "

  The article at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extended_evolutionary_synthesis lists the following predictions of extended evolutionary synthesis.

  "Predictions

  The extended synthesis is characterized by its additional set of predictions that differ from the standard modern synthesis theory:

  1. change in phenotype can precede change in genotype[4]
  2. changes in phenotype are predominantly positive, rather than neutral (see: neutral theory of molecular evolution)
  3. changes in phenotype are induced in many organisms, rather than one organism[4]
  4. revolutionary change in phenotype can occur through mutation, facilitated variation[4] or threshold events[39][54]
  5. repeated evolution in isolated populations can be by convergent evolution or developmental bias[4][31]
  6. adaptation can be caused by natural selection, environmental induction, non-genetic inheritance, learning and cultural transmission (see: Baldwin effect, meme, transgenerational epigenetic inheritance, ecological inheritance, non-Mendelian inheritance)[4]
  7. rapid evolution can result from simultaneous induction, natural selection[4] and developmental dynamics[55]
  8. biodiversity can be affected by features of developmental systems such as differences in evolvability[4]
  9. heritable variation is directed towards variants that are adaptive and integrated with phenotype[4]
  10. niche construction is biased towards environmental changes that suit the constructor's phenotype, or that of its descendants, and enhance their fitness[2]
  11. kin selection[3]
  12. multilevel selection[4]
  13. self-organization[40][56] "
      

  
  See also https://www.templeton.org/discoveries/extended-evolutionary-synthesis . So far I have only browsed the above mentioned articles about the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis, but I intend to read much more of their content since their ideas seem very interesting and very helpful to me. Some of their ideas remind me of what Francis Hitching wrote in his book called Neck Of The Giraffe. Despite a number of severe criticisms made by numerous evolutionists about that book and its author, Francis Hitching got many things right in that book and his book fascinates me. One edition of his book even had the subtitle of "Darwin, Evolution and the New Biology" (see https://www.amazon.com.au/Neck-Giraffe-Francis-Hitching/dp/0451624343 ). What Hitching wrote about "the New Biology" includes a number of the ideas which are now referred to as part of the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis!
• 
  20

  Religion vs. The Gospel

  by Chalam in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  hello jwners,.

  the jw i chatted with recently directed me to matthew 24 with regards to the witnesses and highlighted matthew 24:14. i asked him what "this gospel" is.

  the only answer i got was "i'm not sure what you mean".. .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Disillusioned JW

  Vanderhoven7, Paul's gospel regarding Jesus Christ might not have been exactly the same as the good news (gospel) taught by Jesus himself (as attributed to Jesus in the gospel books called "According to Mark" and "According to Matthew"). Matthew 24:14 (which was referred to in the opening post of this topic) clearly states that that which is called "this gospel" (or "this good news") is "of the kingdom", namely of what Jesus proclaimed was the very soon coming of the kingdom of God to the Earth under the rule of the Messiah! See Mark 1:14-15 which makes this even more clear - even more obvious!

  Likewise the ministry of John the Baptist (as recorded in "According to Mark" [see Mark 1:1-5] and in "According to Matthew" [see Matthew 3:1-2]) was in trying to get the people in Israel ready for that alleged approaching kingdom (which John thought was very near), which included urging people to repent and to get baptized in symbol of their repentance.
  
• 
  20

  Religion vs. The Gospel

  by Chalam in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  hello jwners,.

  the jw i chatted with recently directed me to matthew 24 with regards to the witnesses and highlighted matthew 24:14. i asked him what "this gospel" is.

  the only answer i got was "i'm not sure what you mean".. .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Disillusioned JW

  You are right BoogerMan in thinking that it makes no sense to think that God Almighty would subject subject/subordinate himself to himself (regardless of what Sea Breeze has repeatedly said). The REB (which is the revision of the NEB) and the NEB do not say "God Almighty" in 1 Corinthians 15:28. The "him" mentioned in the phrase "thus subject to him" is clearly Jesus, and clearly not God the Father. Why did you insert the words "God Almighty" into that verse?

  Also though 1 Corinthians 15:28 does not include the phrase "except God the father" after the phrase "all things", the meaning of such is clearly implied in that verse, for obviously the verse is not saying that God the Father (the Yahweh of the Hebrew Scriptures) subjected himself to the Son of God. The translators of the NEB agree with that, for their NEB in 1 Corinthians 15:27 says the following. "Scripture says, 'He has put all things in subjection under his feet. 'But in saying 'all things', it clearly means to exclude God who subordinates them'. The REB says exactly the same thing in that verse, except for saying "made all things subject to him" instead of saying "subordinates them" at the end of that verse. Paul's words as translated in the NEB and the REB thus teach the same doctrine that the WT and its NWT teaches for 1 Corinthians 15:27-28. See even the KJV translation of verse 27 which gives the same idea.
  
• 
  20

  Religion vs. The Gospel

  by Chalam in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  hello jwners,.

  the jw i chatted with recently directed me to matthew 24 with regards to the witnesses and highlighted matthew 24:14. i asked him what "this gospel" is.

  the only answer i got was "i'm not sure what you mean".. .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Disillusioned JW

  Though Chalam (Stephen) wrote that "In 1 Corinthians 15:1–4 , Paul provides the most succinct summary of the gospel: the man Jesus is also God, or Christ ...", 1 Corinthians 15:1–4 makes no claim at all of Jesus being God, nor does it claim that Christ is God.
  
• 
  86

  Is most of the promotion of creationism, not just that by the WT, charlatanism?

  by Disillusioned JW in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  is most of the promotion of creationism, not just that by the wt, charlatanism?.

  https://www.fullmoon.nu/sources.bak/chapter%2010/part%202/gish%20exposed.html [which has an article called "creationism: bad science or immoral pseudoscience?

  - (an expose of creationist dr. duane gish)"] says the following.. 'a look at the "scientific" creationist movement and a close examination of the tactics of a well-known and influential creationist will reveal that the creation "science" movement gains much of its strength through the use of distortion and scientifically unethical tactics.. .... with the facts explained and the lawsuits won, scientists declared victory and returned to their labs and offices.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Disillusioned JW

  markweatherill, would you like to make a post which gives an explanation from an evolutionary perspective to Rattigan's comments/questions about the two sexes? I would like to read it.

  Rattigan are you truly wishing to have an explanation from an evolutionary perspective in regards to your comments/questions about the two sexes?

  I think that if I think about the subject for awhile and especially if I do some research on it, I can probably come up with an explanation, at least a partial explanation. I already have some ideas (based upon facts known to me) which could contribute to the explanation. But I would only be willing to provide an explanation if I knew the effort was worthwhile, namely if I knew you really want an explanation and if I knew that such an explanation had a good chance of changing your belief on the matter.
  
• 
  34

  “Heaven and Earth will pass away but my words will by no means pass away.”

  by Fisherman in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  “this generation will by no means pass away until all these things occur.

  heaven and earth will pass away but my words will by no means pass away.”.

  the destruction of jerusalem is insignificant in the large scheme of things.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Disillusioned JW

  The destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE combined with the subsequent destruction of it in about 135 CE by Emperor Hadrian destroyed most of Torah-keeping Judaic Christianity (the Messianic Judaism of Jesus of Galilee brother of James son of Joseph), resulting in Pauline Gentile Christianity to become prominent.

  There never will be an Armageddon of the biblical type.
  
• 
  146

  Science News article: ‘Case closed’: 99.9% of scientists agree climate emergency caused by humans

  by Disillusioned JW in

  1. social
  2. current

  a news article has the headline of " ‘case closed’: 99.9% of scientists agree climate emergency caused by humans"; see https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/oct/19/case-closed-999-of-scientists-agree-climate-emergency-caused-by-humans .

  the article says in part the following.. 'the scientific consensus that humans are altering the climate has passed 99.9%, according to research that strengthens the case for global action at the cop26 summit in glasgow.. the degree of scientific certainty about the impact of greenhouse gases is now similar to the level of agreement on evolution and plate tectonics, the authors say, based on a survey of nearly 90,000 climate-related studies.

  this means there is practically no doubt among experts that burning fossil fuels, such as oil, gas, coal, peat and trees, is heating the planet and causing more extreme weather.. a previous survey in 2013 showed 97% of studies published between 1991 and 2012 supported the idea that human activities are altering earth’s climate.. this has been updated and expanded by the study by cornell university that shows the tiny minority of sceptical voices has diminished to almost nothing as evidence mounts of the link between fossil-fuel burning and climate disruption.. the latest survey of peer-reviewed literature published from 2012 to november 2020 was conducted in two stages.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Disillusioned JW

  Yesterday I discovered in an anthropology book I own that its author warned that a rise of global temperature of 2.5 degrees Celsius would be very dangerous. That book is copyright 1977 and is written by a world famous leading paleontologist anthropologist named Richard Leakey (who died recently) and coauthored by a person who was at the time the science editor of the science journal called New Scientist. I am astonished that way back in 1977 he proclaimed global warming climate change dangers that most scientists didn't become convinced in until decades later! [But, there is the exception that Leakey seems to be primarily thinking about the problem of having enough food to feed billions of people, not being fully aware of other problems from a rise in global temperature.] Here we are in the year 2022, 45 years after his book was copyright, and there is now an overwhelming consensus among climate scientists of the dangers of more than a 2 degree Celsius increase in global temperatures.
  

  The science book is called ORIGINS: What New Discoveries Reveal About the Emergence of Our Species and its Possible Future, by Richard Leakey and Roger Lewin. [Richard Leakey was unreligious and an atheist, and he became such at a young age. He was also a Humanist. Such are stated in some of his science books.] Much of the book is about human evolution and physical anthropology and much of the latter part is about cultural anthropology.

  The last chapter of that book is called "Mankind in Perspective". Near the end of the chapter, on pages 249 - 253 (but excluding pages 250-252 which are mostly photos), he says the following [I have added boldface for emphasis].

  "We know, too, that there is enough coal to supply our energy-hungry world for many centuries. But it may also turn out that in order to survive we will have to leave that coal buried and unburned. The problem is that, as with other fossil fuels (oil and gas), coal when it is burned releases carbon dioxide. Over the long term, a large build-up of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could alter the world's climate sufficiently to disrupt seriously the pattern of agriculture. Moreover, agricultural production in the U.S., China and the Soviet Union is so finely balanced with demand, particularly for grain, that even the slightest normal variation in weather can cause havoc. The results of global warming of 2.5°C, the anticipated outcome of a dramatic rise in the carbon dioxide level within sixty years, are virtually unimaginable.

  Major policy decisions will have to be taken with the next thirty years if this prospect is diverted. And those decisions will be useless unless they are agreed upon globally: there would be little point, for instance, in the Soviet Union deciding not to unearth its massive coal reserves if the U.S. goes ahead and burns its coal, or vice versa. Undoubtedly the question of future energy resources is about to strain the machinery of international decision-making as it has never been strained before. There is no mistaking that if the wrong decisions are made within the next thirty years, human life on earth could be set on the downward spiral toward extinction."

  Page 141 of the book has a chart which "shows how the temperatures have fluctuated during the last million years."
  
• 
  62

  NASA: Humans Back to the Moon

  by Gerard in

  1. social
  2. current

  nasa plans return to moon by 2020

  "this vision aims to return humans to the moon, and then to use it as a staging point for a manned mission to mars.

  i wonder if jws will be required to canvas those areas too.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Disillusioned JW

  'NASA is targeting the next launch attempt of the Artemis I mission for Monday, Nov. 14" according to https://blogs.nasa.gov/artemis/ and according to https://blogs.nasa.gov/artemis/2022/10/12/nasa-sets-date-for-next-launch-attempt-for-artemis-i-moon-mission/ . Besides the above about the Artemis launch https://blogs.nasa.gov/artemis/ also says that "CAPSTONE team members successfully executed an operation to stop the spacecraft’s spin on Friday, Oct. 7, clearing a major hurdle in returning the spacecraft to normal operations." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAPSTONE says the following about CAPSTONE.

  "CAPSTONE (Cislunar Autonomous Positioning System Technology Operations and Navigation Experiment) is a lunar orbiter that will test and verify the calculated orbital stability planned for the Lunar Gateway space station. The spacecraft is a 12-unit CubeSat that will also test a navigation system that will measure its position relative to NASA's Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) without relying on ground stations. It was launched on 28 June 2022, and will spend over six months flying around the Moon.

  ... The Gateway is planned to be placed in a novel lunar orbit that has not been used previously, where it is expected to serve as a communications hub, science laboratory, short-term habitation module, and holding area for rovers and other robots.[3] Gateway is slated to play a major role in NASA's Artemis program.

  Computer simulations indicate that this particular orbit – a near-rectilinear halo orbit (NRHO) – offers long-term stability with low propellant requirements for orbital station-keeping,[4] by using a precise balance point in the gravities of Earth and the Moon that offers a stable trajectory.[5] "

  That is very exciting to me.
  

  ++++++++
  

  Last night was a great time to see Mars in the sky in a position which was about the same line of sight as seeing the moon. It we be in about the same alignment and position tonight (October 15, 2022) also. See https://www.space.com/moon-visits-mars-friday-oct-14-2022 in order to know where to look and how to identify Mars in the sky. Mars is close enough that we can see with the unaided eye. I saw it that way and through my 10X magnification binoculars. Both ways it looks orange. I was excited that I could see Mars those ways and know for sure that I was indeed looking at Mars.
  

  Using my binoculars I even clearly saw craters on the moon. They were definitely craters for they were clearly visible circular depressions. I was thrilled to see such with my own binoculars.

  Some day there will be humans both on Earth's moon and on Mars.
  
• 
  86

  Is most of the promotion of creationism, not just that by the WT, charlatanism?

  by Disillusioned JW in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  is most of the promotion of creationism, not just that by the wt, charlatanism?.

  https://www.fullmoon.nu/sources.bak/chapter%2010/part%202/gish%20exposed.html [which has an article called "creationism: bad science or immoral pseudoscience?

  - (an expose of creationist dr. duane gish)"] says the following.. 'a look at the "scientific" creationist movement and a close examination of the tactics of a well-known and influential creationist will reveal that the creation "science" movement gains much of its strength through the use of distortion and scientifically unethical tactics.. .... with the facts explained and the lawsuits won, scientists declared victory and returned to their labs and offices.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Disillusioned JW

  I still have the impression that one publication of the WT explicitly says that the WT (and/or JWs) believes in "creation science" but I don't recall exactly where I read that. Perhaps it was an Awake! article from the early 1980s.