Posts by Disillusioned JW

20

Religion vs. The Gospel

by Chalam in

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".. .

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

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.

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

“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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

86

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

by Disillusioned JW in

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.

Disillusioned JW

hooberus, in answer to your question of "Can you give examples of ways to disprove Evolution (to the satisfaction of the naturalistic community?)" I say the following. Richard Dawkins himself gave an example which would qualify as such. He stated it in his God Delusion book, but I don't remember where in the book it is mentioned. He said that if a fossil of a definite rabbit was found in a definite pre-Cambrian period layer it would (in his mind) disprove biological evolution.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precambrian_rabbit says the following. ' "Precambrian rabbits" or "fossil rabbits in the Precambrian" are reported to have been among responses given by the biologist J. B. S. Haldane when asked what evidence could destroy his confidence in the theory of evolution and the field of study.

... Some accounts use this response to rebut claims that the theory of evolution is not falsifiable by any empirical evidence. This followed an assertion by philosopher, Karl Popper, who had proposed that falsifiability is an essential feature of a scientific theory. Popper also expressed doubts about the scientific status of evolutionary theory, although he later concluded that the field of study was genuinely scientific.

... Evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins said that the discovery of fossil mammals in Precambrian rocks would "completely blow evolution out of the water."[20] '

However, admittedly the same article says the following.

'Philosopher Peter Godfrey-Smith doubted that a single set of anachronistic fossils, however, even rabbits in the Precambrian, would disprove the theory of evolution outright. The first question raised by the assertion of such a discovery would be whether the alleged "Precambrian rabbits" really were fossilized rabbits. Alternative interpretations might include incorrect identification of the "fossils", incorrect dating of the rocks, and a hoax such as the Piltdown Man was shown to be. Even if the "Precambrian rabbits" turned out to be genuine, they would not instantly refute the theory of evolution, because that theory is a large package of ideas, including: that life on Earth has evolved over billions of years; that this evolution is driven by certain mechanisms; and that these mechanisms have produced a specific "family tree" that defines the relationships among species and the order in which they appeared. Hence, "Precambrian rabbits" would prove that there were one or more serious errors somewhere in this package, and the next task would be to identify those errors.[2] '

86

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

by Disillusioned JW in

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.

Disillusioned JW

Regarding the usage and meaning of the term "creation science" note the following.

https://evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12052-020-00124-w says the following. "Young-earth creationism, also known variously as literal-day creationism, literal creationism, or creation science, is a movement dedicated to providing purportedly scientific support for a particular literal reading of the Biblical book of Genesis. Their reading of Genesis and subsequent attempts to gather evidence in support of their view puts them at odds with the scientific consensus on common descent and deep time."

https://ncse.ngo/young-earth-creationism says the following. 'Young Earth Creationists are among the more organized creationist movements. Two of the largest groups, Answers in Genesis and the Institute for Creation Research produce magazines, websites, books, and videos for general audiences as well as publish journals which report on so-called "creation science".'

https://ncse.ngo/henry-morris-dies says the following. "Henry Morris, the founder of the "creation science" movement, died on February 25, 2006, in Santee, California, at the age of 87. ... Morris ... moved to California in order to establish the Creation Science Research Center, a creationist auxiliary .... Morris reorganized what remained as the Institute for Creation Research. Morris served as the president of the ICR from 1970 to 1995 ...."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_science says the following. 'Creation science or scientific creationism is a pseudoscientific form of Young Earth creationism which claims to offer scientific arguments for certain literalist and inerrantist interpretations of the Bible. It is often presented without overt faith-based language, but instead relies on reinterpreting scientific results to argue that various myths in the Book of Genesis and other select biblical passages are scientifically valid. The most commonly advanced ideas of creation science include special creation based on the Genesis creation narrative and flood geology based on the Genesis flood narrative.[1] ... Creation science (dubbed "scientific creationism" at the time) emerged as an organized movement during the 1960s.[49] '

Rattigan350 I might have been wrong in thinking that the WT's LIfe--How Did It Get Here? By evolution or by creation? book (copyright 1985) says that JWs believe in "creation science" (in regards to using that term to describe the JWs view). Today I looked through the book to see if says uses the specific expression of "creation science" to describe it beliefs, but I didn't find it doing so. However To me the book promotes the idea of "creation science". That is because of two things. I do see the book using the word "Creation" (on page 10 of the book, and elsewhere in the book) to describe its beliefs. Furthermore, on pages 10-11 I see the book says that the book will examine both the claim "that creation is not scientific" and the idea that the Genesis account of creation is "in harmony with the discoveries of modern science".

86

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

by Disillusioned JW in

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.

Disillusioned JW

Rattigan350, though the WT says that JWs are not creationists they actually are creationists, though not the young earth creationist type. The WT defines creationists as only those who believe in young earth creationism, but old earth non-evolutionary creationism (even if it incorporates a biosphere of hundreds of millions of years) is still a type of creationism. JWs are creationist since they believe Jehovah God created the universe and all biological life without using a macroevolutionary process. The WT's LIfe--How Did It Get Here? By evolution or by creation? book (copyright 1985) says that JWs believe in "creation science" not creationism, but a few years ago I examined some literature (written from before 1985) by young earth creationists which promote young earth creationism, and those books said the books promoted "creation science". As a result, even the term term "creation science" is a term created by creationists (probably specifically of the young earth type of creationism) to refer to creationism (including young earth creationism) in a way that sounds scientific. Another term used is "Scientific Creationism" and i have a book ("Copyright 1974, Second Edition 1985") with that term as its title; it is authored by Henry M. Morris of the "Institute for Creation Research".

86

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

by Disillusioned JW in

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.

Disillusioned JW

Hi hooberus. I accept your definition of evolution (which includes the origin of life from lifeless chemicals, and subsequent biological evolution to multiple taxonomic groups of life), except I wouldn't use the word "guided'. I think evolution is unguided.

I like that your definition is broad enough to allow for multiple possible mechanisms of evolution (including horizontal gene transfer) and multiple rates of evolution. I think that most of biological evolution in the animal kingdom happened in a punctuated equilibrium manner involving allopatric speciation. Genetic mutations, environmental conditions (including changes in environmental conditions), and natural selection also play a major role.