Posts by Disillusioned JW

99

If not the WT/JW relgion where else are 'we' to go? Why not atheistic/scientific philosophical naturalism?

by Disillusioned JW in

sometimes jws wonder if the wt/jw is not the truth, 'then where else are we to go?

' i say 'why not atheistic/scientific philosophical naturalism and why not a secular philosophy which teaches a way of life?

' what do you folks say?.

Disillusioned JW

On pages 6 and 7 of this topic thread, Sea Breeze (probably this site's foremost outspoken young Earth creationist critic of evolution) says that the science of genetics (combined with the idea of information theory) prove that mutations and natural selection could not have have resulted in macroevolution, but he is wrong.

Yesterday I found a science essay article which presents very strong genetic evidence of what causes most macroevolution, including such having happened in a punctuated equilibrium manner! See https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7029956/ . It has an abstract of an article from February 2022 called "The Developmental Gene Hypothesis for Punctuated Equilibrium: Combined Roles of Developmental Regulatory Genes and Transposable Elements". It provides the answer I have been looking for years. It is similar to partial answers I have found years ago, but it is expansion of those. According to my understanding of the article, the cause of macroevolution in a punctuated equilibrium manner is as follows. Most the needed mutations for such happen in noncoding sections of the genome which acquired insertions of transposable elements (TE). Since that area is noncoding such mutations did not harm organisms. Later some of the insertions were transposed to in or near transcriptional and developmental genes. When such insertions were beneficial it resulted in sudden macroevolution (but when they were unfavorable the result was "... typically incompatible with life and often lead to miscarriage or serious functional impairment preventing further inheritance"). The DevReg genes were thus were high conserved, with only the beneficial changes being passed on from individuals' offspring beyond one generation. [Regarding one instance the article says the following. "In this instance, the variation intolerance of DevReg genes provides an active safeguard against mutational events. Surprisingly, CNE within long genes such as DevReg genes are not mutation cold spots despite their functional sensitivity. Instead, such mutations are typically incompatible with life and often lead to miscarriage or serious functional impairment preventing further inheritance. [41,42] "] The article says the following.

'Theories of the genetics underlying Punctuated Equilibrium (PE) have been vague to date. Here we propose the Developmental Gene Hypothesis, which states that: 1) developmental regulatory (DevReg) genes are responsible for the orchestration of metazoan morphogenesis and their extreme conservation and mutation intolerance generates the equilibrium or stasis present throughout much of the fossil record; and 2) the accumulation of regulatory elements and recombination within these same genes—often derived from transposable elements—drives punctuated bursts of morphological divergence and speciation across metazoa. This two-part hypothesis helps to explain the features that characterize PE, providing a theoretical genetic basis for the once-controversial theory.

... Detractors of punctuated equilibrium have previously chided the theory as a mechanism with “no scientific use” as they claimed it could not be tested at the genetic level. [2] However, with the advent of large-scale genomic sequencing and extensive molecular and computational study of numerous genomes, our wealth of available data has grown substantially since the early battles over Gould and Eldredge’s theory. [3] Since that time we have been able to study not only transposable elements (TE) (i.e., “selfish DNA”) and their roles in molecular evolution, but also the subset of genes responsible for the regulation of morphogenesis reflected in the fossil record.

Here, we propose that there is a native genetic complement to TE insertions leading to features of punctuated equilibria in both the vertebrate and invertebrate fossil records. Specifically, this complement lies within the developmental regulatory (DevReg) genes responsible for morphogenesis and their unique mutational patterns, as well as the elements that regulate their expression. The genes’ relative mutation intolerance suggests a means by which morphology is actively conserved even in the face of exaggerated TE activity. [4] Yet they also exhibit a clear history of TE insertion that is strongly correlated to the presence of conserved noncoding elements (CNE) and changes to gene regulation and phenotype by acting as promoters, enhancers, repressors, terminators, insulators, and post-transcriptional effectors.[4–7] In addition, TE-derived RNA may act as direct regulators of these important developmental genes, strongly reminiscent of Barbara McClintock’s “controlling elements”. [7,8] Alongside the TE-Thrust Hypothesis [9] and the TE-epigenomic arms race proposed by Zeh et al. [10], as well as the large body of work spearheaded by Eric Davidson [11,12] concerning the roles of the regulome in speciation, we believe the Developmental Gene Hypothesis may help explain the long periods of active morphological stasis within the fossil record bookended by rare TE-associated mutational events that have long lasting effects on phenotype and have been tightly conserved over evolutionary time [4,13] (Fig. 1).

... Although evolution of the eukaryotic exome has been relatively conserved across time, evolution of the regulome seems to account for considerable interspecies variation. [11,13] The regulome is both a seat of rapid evolutionary development, as in the case of species-specific TE regulatory exaptation, and extreme conservation in the form of conserved (CNE) and ultraconserved noncoding elements (UCNE). [14–16] UCNE networks are likewise strongly conserved across species in the form of gene regulatory blocks surrounding important developmental genes. [17]

... Many of the UCNE are located in or near transcriptional and developmental genes, as are many of the younger less conserved noncoding elements unique to later phylogenetic branches, suggesting a strong directional selection for the retention and exaptation of potential noncoding elements in these regions [15,18]

... While genetic isolation and ultimately hybrid dysgenesis ensure speciation, the evolution of DevReg genes plays a fundamental role in the type of morphological divergence that originally inspired the Linnaean classification system. [45] ... it has subsequently been demonstrated that morphological evolution correlates better with regulatory gene divergence rather than with overall rates of molecular evolution. [48–50] Thus, the variation intolerance we see in DevReg genes appears to be responsible for the significant periods of morphological stasis present in the fossil record. Meanwhile, other gene groups evolve at a more rapid, and perhaps more constant, rate.

... Since the publication of the theory of punctuated equilibrium, detractors have sometimes criticized its dependence on an imperfect fossil record and the lack of an underlying genetic theory. [1] Oliver and Greene [9] and Zeh et al. [10] made significant strides by proposing genetic and epigenetic mechanisms that help explain the long periods of stasis bookended by periods of comparatively rapid change. Likewise, the body of work by Eric Davidson clearly outlines numerous regulatory mechanisms leading to morphological divergence across species. [11,12] These works, however, do not recognize the active role DevReg genes play in maintaining morphological stasis, their propensity to collect TE-derived noncoding elements over time, or their tendency to be regulated by TE-derived RNA. [8] All of these presumably underlie changes in gene function and morphology relevant to the patterns within the fossil record first recognized by Gould and Eldredge. [3] The Developmental Gene Hypothesis helps to fill in these important gaps.

... Within mammals, there are strong links between TE activity and speciation. [56,57] As mentioned, TEs provide a prime source of potential regulatory material to the host genome and the primate lineage is an excellent example of such a relationship.

... TE insertions have also played an important role in the evolution of pregnancy, particularly in the decidualization of the connective tissue within the uterus. For instance, certain endogenous retroviruses (ERV) are highly expressed in mammalian uterus in a tissue-specific manner and, among other things, help to drive cell fusion within the trophoblast layers via action of the ERV-derived envelope glycoprotein, syncytin. [75,76] Interestingly, the Mabuya lizard, which evolved approximately 25 million years ago (mya), is viviparous and has an unusually mammalian-like placenta that also expresses an ERV-derived envelope glycoprotein functionally identical to mammalian syncytin. [77] Similarly, fossilized evidence of the Jurassic marine reptiles, ichthyosaurs, show they were also viviparous, indicating that live birth has evolved multiple times in the reptilian lineage and may commonly be linked with the exaptation of retroviruses (see Fig. 4).

Thousands of other transposon-derived cis-regulatory elements have been identified that also regulate placental function, many of which have been exapted as hormone response elements (HRE). [78] For instance, Alu elements have been shown to house high-affinity binding sites for the estrogen, thyroid, and retinoic acid receptors. [79] SVA elements likewise appear to house HRE half-sites and also bind the glucocorticoid receptor. [80] Therefore, evidence suggests that both TE-derived HRE and ERV-derived envelope glycoproteins have played important roles in the evolution of mammalian pregnancy.

... 4. Conclusions and Outlook

While punctuated equilibrium as a theory has stood the test of time, until now there has been no clear genetic explanation for the trends present within the fossil record. Work by Oliver and Greene [9], Zeh et al. [10], and Davidson [11] provide admirable starting points and, we think, vital pieces of the larger story.

The Developmental Gene Hypothesis, however, proposes a clear and testable mechanism for stasis via the strong purifying selection acting upon DevReg genes. Likewise, a measurable record of transposable element insertion, exaptation, and recombination within these same genes provides a primary mechanism for bursts of adaptation and evidence of accelerated evolution in these genes across select species lends further support to this notion.'

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

The quote from page 183 of Bill Nye's book which says "... 2 decades earlier" seems to mean 2 decades earlier than the year 1993. I think that because of the following. The quote on page 183 about the temperatures of Venus and of Earth is of what Bill Nye says he discussed in a book he wrote in 1993. Furthermore, a Wikipedia article about Bill Nye says he attended Cornell University from 1973 to 1977, and it says that while at Cornell Bill Nye took an astronomy course taught by Carl Sagan.

Regarding Vidqun's question of "Why is the mean temperature of Mars -60 degrees Celsius?", despite CO2 being about 96.5% of total gases, that answer should be obvious to those who researched the matter. It is obvious to me. It is because the total amount of gases on Mars is minute. The total amount of atmosphere of Mars is only about 1 percent of that of Earth. If the amount was the same as that of Earth it would be a much warmer planet than it now it. Scientists say that Mars used to have much more atmosphere but that it lost most of it, largely because its gravity wasn't strong enough to hold onto it. They also say that liquid water used to cover much of the surface of Mars and that Mars used to be much warmer than it is now.

Regarding Venus, it has vastly more total atmosphere than Earth. Scientists say that Venus used be much more like Earth - even possibly habitable, but that it later experienced a runway greenhouse effect! https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2475/nasa-climate-modeling-suggests-venus-may-have-been-habitable/ says the following.

"Venus today is a hellish world. It has a crushing carbon dioxide atmosphere 90 times as thick as Earth’s. There is almost no water vapor. Temperatures reach 864 degrees Fahrenheit (462 degrees Celsius) at its surface.

Scientists long have theorized that Venus formed out of ingredients similar to Earth’s, but followed a different evolutionary path. Measurements by NASA’s Pioneer mission to Venus in the 1980s first suggested Venus originally may have had an ocean. However, Venus is closer to the sun than Earth and receives far more sunlight. As a result, the planet’s early ocean evaporated, water-vapor molecules were broken apart by ultraviolet radiation, and hydrogen escaped to space. With no water left on the surface, carbon dioxide built up in the atmosphere, leading to a so-called runaway greenhouse effect that created present conditions."

'Once upon a time, around small yellow sun, there existed a world with a rocky surface and a molten core. It harbored water and may even have been hospitable to life.

Then the planet got hot -- really hot. Its atmosphere filled with heat-trapping gases. Water evaporated into its atmosphere and then was lost to space. Whatever mechanisms the planet may have had for balancing its climate were broken. Nothing, not even a robot, could survive there.

This is not a scenario from a science fiction novel about climate change (or the director’s cut of Wall-E). It’s what scientists say really happened to a world in our own solar system: Venus.

... Now Venus is the poster child for the “runaway greenhouse effect," a testament to the way a planet can change when the cycles that balance its climate are broken. The temperature at its surface is more than 850 degrees Fahrenheit -- as hot as a self-cleaning oven. The crushing pressure of an atmosphere thick with sulfuric acid clouds is as intense as what you’d experience half a mile beneath the ocean on Earth. If that wasn’t enough to kill you, breathing air composed of 96 percent carbon dioxide would do the trick.'

Regarding Vidqun's question of "Who pays Bill Nye's salary?", I see no significance to that in determining if that means Nye isn't really concerned about climate change being a huge danger to humankind or not. Many people take jobs in particular fields because those fields address matters which are important to them, instead of choosing them solely as a way to make money. For example, for a number years I had an online home-based business which sold solar electric modules. I chose to make money from that, rather than from something else instead of it, because I was (and am still) very greatly concerned about the environment and the environmental need for humankind to switch to from fossil fuel energy sources to renewable energy. My efforts to make money from the sale of solar electric modules did not cause me to be dishonest about the environmental importance of solar power and it did not cause me to be dishonest about the need to protect the environment, and it did not cause me to become dishonest about anything else.

Regarding where Bill Nye made and makes money from employment, he was host of the science education television show called Bill Nye the Science Guy from 1993–1999, and he makes money from the books he wrote which advocate science. Currently he is CEO of The Planetary Society, an American internationally-active non-governmental nonprofit organization. I don't know how much money, if any, he makes from that nonprofit organization. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Planetary_Society says "The Society is dedicated to the exploration of the Solar System, the search for near-Earth objects, and the search for extraterrestrial life.[4]" The organization thus does seem to be about climate change.

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-ol-patt-morrison-bill-nye-science-20170719-htmlstory.html quotes Bill Nye as saying the following.

'One’s intuition about climate change is not as good as facts about climate change.

It just sounds like people are scared. It just sounds like people are afraid. And the people who are afraid in general — with due respect, and I am now one of them — are older. Climate change deniers, by way of example, are older. It’s generational. So we’re just going to have to wait for those people to “age out,” as they say. “Age out” is a euphemism for “die.” But it’ll happen, I guarantee you — that’ll happen.'

I hope that Bill Nye is right in thinking that the majority of climate change deniers are older people and that as result eventually there will be virtually no more climate deniers, since climate change is for real and urgently needs to recognized as such by the vast majority of adult humankind! Poll results say that Bill Nye is right about what age group primarily denies climate change. Note that https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/05/26/key-findings-how-americans-attitudes-about-climate-change-differ-by-generation-party-and-other-factors/ says the following regarding people in the USA

"

Younger generations in the U.S. are especially likely to express an interest in addressing climate change – and to say they have personally taken some kind of action to do so. About a third of Gen Zers (32%) and 28% of Millennials say they’ve done something in the past year to address climate change, such as donating money, volunteering, contacting an elected official or attending a rally or protest. And two-thirds of Gen Zers, as well as 61% of Millennials, say they’ve talked with friends or family about the need for action on climate change in the past few weeks. Smaller shares of Gen X and Baby Boomer and older adults say they’ve done these things.

Younger generations are also more likely to engage with climate change on social media: 45% of Gen Z and 40% of Millennial social media users say they’ve engaged with climate-related content in some way, such as by interacting with or sharing a post about the need for climate action or following an account focused on the cause. About half as many social media users who are Baby Boomers or members of older generations report doing the same.

A majority of Gen Zers (56%) and Millennials (57%) support a move to phase out gasoline-powered vehicles, compared with smaller shares in older generations. Younger generations are also significantly more likely than older ones to support phasing out the use of oil, coal and natural gas entirely, though about half or more across all generations favor using a mix of fossil fuel and renewable energy sources going forward."

99

If not the WT/JW relgion where else are 'we' to go? Why not atheistic/scientific philosophical naturalism?

by Disillusioned JW in

sometimes jws wonder if the wt/jw is not the truth, 'then where else are we to go?

' i say 'why not atheistic/scientific philosophical naturalism and why not a secular philosophy which teaches a way of life?

' what do you folks say?.

Disillusioned JW

The web page at https://www.learnreligions.com/science-allows-belief-god-does-not-exist-248234 makes an excellent case for the idea that "scientifically, God does not exist—just as science discounts the existence of a myriad of other alleged beings." It says in part the following.

'To understand why "God does not exist" is a legitimate scientific statement, it's important to understand what the statement means in the context of science.'

It "... is that this alleged entity (or God) has no place in any scientific equations, plays no role in any scientific explanations, cannot be used to predict any events, does not describe anything or force that has yet been detected, and there are no models of the universe in which its presence is either required, productive, or useful.

What should be most obvious about the more technically accurate statement is that it isn't absolute. It does not deny for all time any possible existence of the entity or force in question; instead, it's a provisional statement denying the existence of any relevance or reality to the entity or force based on what we currently know. Religious theists may be quick to seize upon this and insist that it demonstrates that science cannot "prove" that God does not exist, but that requires far too strict of a standard for what it means to "prove" something scientifically.

... If God existed, there should be concrete evidence of His existence—not faith, but tangible, measurable, consistent evidence that can be predicted and tested using the scientific method. If we fail to find that evidence, then God cannot exist as defined."

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

I wonder if any of the climate change deniers who post on this web site think highly of Bill Nye ("The Science Guy") in regards to what he says about science and in regards to his integrity. If any of them think highly of him, then I encourage them to consider what he says about climate change.

Bill Nye takes climate change seriously and he says that climate change is real, that is now largely human caused, that is scares him, and that humans need to take action to fight climate change - including voting to stop climate change.

in the quotes below, the boldface (but the not the wording) was added me to me for emphasis.

I have a hardcover edition of a book by Bill Nye called Everything All At Once (copyright 2017). He addresses much of his book to nerds (and Nye identifies as a nerd). A day or so ago I noticed that pages 110-111 say the following.

'We nerds, scientists, and fellow travelers have a two-part responsibility here. First, we have to fight back against people who actively try to devalue the knowledge that we have fought so hard to gain. I believe we have to defend scientific ideas, and even more importantly, we have to defend the scientific process, the principle of being open to new information. We have to actively promote the philosophy that everyone knows something you don't. ... We also need to have sympathetic discussions (I mean instead of loud arguments) about human-caused climate change.

... I've heard too many climate "debates" that consist of deniers saying climate change is a hoax and the ostensibly pro-science people responding that the deniers are either thoughtless idiots or amoral evildoers. Look I am very familiar with how frustrating it can be to talk with people who reject scientific evidence, but I'm pretty sure that nobody has ever changed his or her mind as a result of being called an idiot.

We need to hold accountable the leaders of the climate-denialist movement, the enemies of the idea that everyone knows something you don't. We need to expose what they do not know and discredit them. At the same time, we need to find ways to spread information and real evidence in a way that inspires confidence and trust. Wherever possible, we must work to vote the troublemakers out of office, exposing their corruption and offering a clear alternative that will actually protect and uplift us all. And who is this "we" I'm talking about? It is all of us. A meaningful response to climate change will take more scientific research and engineering solutions. It will also take lobbying, public outreach, community organizing, get-out-the-vote drives, and corporate support.'

On pages 183-184 and on page 193 of his book Bill Nye addresses a number of the claims repeated by some climate deniers who posted in this topic thread

On pages 183-185 Bill Nye says the following.

'On Earth, the global average temperature is about 15°C (58°F). On Venus, the average temperature is about 460°C (860°F). Venus is closer to the Sun, but that doesn't explain the drastic difference .... What really sets Venus apart form our planet is its atmosphere, which is 90 times as thick as Earth's and made almost entirely of carbon dioxide. All that CO2 produces a super-greenhouse effect, and as the result is a world where even the coolest day would melt a lead fishing weight into a puddle.

... Comparing Earth with Venus is a pedagogical path that Carl Sagan took us down when I was his student 2 decades earlier. Sagan and climate scientist James Hansen realized that the greenhouse effect explains the other planet's extreme temperatures. later they connected the Venusian studies to the possibility of climate change on Earth.

... I've been fighting the climate-change fight for more than 23 years now, along with many others out there, the full-time climate scientists. Hansen, the former director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, did an early study conclusively showing that carbon dioxide produced by human activity is making the world get warmer faster than at any time in the past few hundred thousand years. Michael Mann at Pennsylvania State University produced the famous "hockey stick" graph illustrating the world's temperature over the past several thousand years. Earth's overall temperature was steady for millennia, but now--woosh-it has shot up swiftly in just the last 250 years. Gavin Schmidt, who succeeded Hansen at the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, advances and refines our climate models by the day. But in a world filled with people who willfully promote misinformation to further their own agenda, somehow it is still a fight to get this reality taken seriously. ... What it means is that we need to embrace the Sagan approach even more vigorously. Take the long view. Be resolute but remain optimistic. Relate ideas in ways that people understand through clear storytelling and personal connections.

... What I want to do is get everybody in the United States, everybody in the world, on board with the exciting opportunities. We don't want our greenhouse effect to get away from us. As Sagan warned, we do not want to be like Venus. We can produce clean electricity in new ways. ... The jobs to create the renewable economy would be here on native soil. We've seen a recent eruption of populist politics around the world, propelled in part by complains about the loss of local control of the economy. Well, if you want locally produced energy, you are not going to do better than wind, solar, geothermal, and tidal energy. It's yet another instance in which the best, nerd-certified solution ends up benefiting everyone.

Part of the reason for this book is to enlist your help ... --getting you to be part of the resonance. Help people link extreme weather events with the global warming that makes those kinds of events more likely. Help people understand that renewable energy comes with local control. Connect the inspiring discoveries of space exploration with the things we now understand about the danger of rapid climate change on our own planet. Making these conceptual and personal connections is a very Carl Sagan way of communicating the science. I'm sure it works, because I've seen it work.'

Bill Nye says the following on pages 193-194 of his book.

'With this said, we are living in a weird time for critical thinking. Climate change is a prime example. Several decades ago, scientists started seeing indications that the whole world is getting warmer overall. Since then they have gathered enormous amounts of data to verify and quantify the discovery. The claim today is quite specific: Earth's temperature is rising, and industrial emissions are the primary cause. it is testable, and nearly all climate scientists will tell you that the evidence for human-driven global warming has in fact been tested and thoroughly verified. Yet a determined collection of climate-change deniers has managed to sow doubt here at the testability stage. They question the researchers' motivations. They question the quality and the quantity of the evidence, implying (incorrectly) that there is not extremely strong agreement within the climate-research community. That is why some scientists and science journalists push back, noting that there is about a 97 percent consensus that humans are driving climate change. Their point is not that a mob must be right. It is more an appeal to Occam's razor. it would take quite an elaborate conspiracy to get that many people to sign on to bad or crooked results. The far simpler explanation is that the researchers are doing exactly what they appear to be doing, gathering the best-available data and subjecting it to the best-possible analysis.

None of the climate counterclaims seem worthwhile to me, but I take the need for critical thinking seriously. This is a great opportunity for you to apply the standard of "prove it" for yourself. I think it is worthwhile to work through how you even know such a basic fact as the roundness of the Earth. So by all means--when it comes to climate change and global warming, I encourage everyone to evaluate the preponderance of evidence and to examine the publications by climate experts. As a critical thinker, you are like a juror in a very important trial, perhaps the most important one ever. The case here is one that will determine the welfare of billions of people.

Have at, my fellow nerd!'

The web page at https://billnye.com/documentary is a about a documentary about Bill Nye. It says the following.

'Bill Nye is a man on a mission: to stop the spread of anti-scientific thinking across the world.

... his behind-the-scenes portrait of Nye follows him as he takes off his Science Guy lab coat and takes on those who deny climate change, evolution, and a science-based world view. The film features Bill Nye, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Ann Druyan, and many others." Ann Druyan was the wife of Carl Sagan.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/28/crosswords/bill-nye-climate-change-crossword.html says the following.

'In big discussions about climate change and Earth’s future, “words are really important,” Nye said. He criticized the way in which recent climate conversations have been handled on a global scale.

“The words are always watered down,” he said, pointing to discussions at COP26, a United Nations climate conference.

... When people say humans are likely to be responsible for climate change, “that’s different from saying it’s our fault,” Nye said. The phrases “climate change” and “global warming” are just two sides of the same coin, he said. And while the conversation about the warming planet can feel daunting, Nye believes that “everybody should be anxious about climate change.”

... “Global warming” has gradually been replaced, in many instances, by “climate change,” Deborah Tannen, a linguistics professor at Georgetown University, said. One disadvantage of the phrase “global warming” is that it can be taken to mean only increasing temperatures, so other catastrophic effects may not seem connected, Tannen said. “Global warming” acknowledges the overall trend toward warmer temperatures, but it largely neglects local effects, which are experienced as shifts in extremes, the climate scientist and Harvard professor Marianna Linz said. Those extremes could include heat, but they could also be droughts, floods or tornadoes.

Nye said that while taping the show in the ’90s, he was “concerned” about the future of the United States. “I still am,” he added.

“People are frightened by climate change, and they should be,” Nye said. “It’s a scary proposition.” '

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/07/04/bill-nye-the-best-way-to-fight-climate-change-is-by-voting.html says the following.

'The best way to save the planet isn't necessarily recycling – it's stepping into a voting booth.

That's according to celebrity science educator Bill Nye, television's "The Science Guy," who spoke at the Aspen Ideas Festival in Aspen, Colorado, last week. "To be sure, recycling the bottles, don't throw the plastic away [and] compost your compostable things ... Start there," Nye said. "[But] if you want to do one thing about climate change: Vote."

"And, if you're a kid and you can't vote yet, make sure your parents vote," Nye, 66, added. "Hassle them."

... Nye pointed to laws that would attach fees or taxes to carbon emissions as examples of legislation that might move the needle on climate change, because affecting the wallets of both individuals and corporations could help curtail the sort of behavior that results in exorbitant carbon usage.

"Take the environment into account [when voting]," he said. "Don't just vote for, with respect, dumb stuff. Vote for better laws to control climate change."

...

At Aspen, Nye said the best solution to increasingly powerful storms is reducing greenhouse gas emissions across the globe.

"What you would do is reduce greenhouse gas emissions, so the world doesn't get warm as fast as it's getting warm," he said. "The problem is the ocean is getting warm and then all of this energy that's being stored in the ocean leads to [increased convection] and these big hurricanes." '

https://www.ecowatch.com/bill-nye-climate-denial-politics.html says the following.

'Acosta began the interview by asking Nye how the climate crisis had impacted Hurricane Ian, which inundated some parts of Florida with a total rainfall only seen once every thousand years.

“This hurricane is exactly the kind of thing that’s predicted by every climate model,” Nye said.

The science educator mentioned three ways that Ian behaved in keeping with climate models:

Its strength
Its size
The fact that it intensified rapidly before making landfall

“The energy that drives a hurricane is heat,” Nye explained. “As the atmosphere gets warmer, the heat ends up in the ocean.”

He then went on to detail how slightly cooler air forces the warm ocean air upwards, where it hits the stratosphere and is transformed into a circular storm by the forces of gravity and the Earth’s rotation.

... Nye’s remarks to conservatives came as he was discussing what to do about climate change. He mentioned a plethora of solutions from improving infrastructure to building more trains. But he said one thing was standing in the way of any potential solution.

“If we don’t acknowledge there’s a problem, we’re not going to get it done,” he said.

He then called out Republican lawmakers specifically.

“And so I just want to ask conservative lawmakers to cut it out,” he said. “I understand that you want to get reelected. I understand that you have this primary system which motivates you to get these hardcore conservative voters engaged. But look, you’ve just, just cut it out.”

... This isn’t the first time that Nye has gotten political in the face of climate denial. In 2017, he called the Trump administration the “last gasp of the anti-science movement.” In 2018, he challenged Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau over his approval of the controversial Trans Mountain pipeline expansion. He is also a disaster expert. He hosts The End is Nye on Peacock, in which he outlines how to survive natural disasters using science.'

349

Who really is the Faithful and Discreet Slave?

by Godlyman in

if anyone were to come up to you claiming that they are the faithful and discreet slave, how would you go about proving them to be false, based upon scripture?.

estephan.

Disillusioned JW

Yes the WT religion is F'ed up!

There is no evidence that the governing body of the WT/JW religion was chosen by Jehovah/Yahweh God. There is also no evidence that they are "the faithful and discreet slave". There is evidence that governing body members of the WT/JW religion were not chosen by God. People who are at least somewhat rational should cease being active in the religion, as soon as possible!

3

Great books for Gospel Research

by peacefulpete in

among the first books i acquired in my research was an old copy of a harmony of the synoptic gospels for historical and critical study by burton and goodspeed.

before that i had heard others speak of the 'synoptic problem' but it was meaningless to me and just sounded like quackery meant to discredit the bible.

i have to say this one volume's laying out the synoptic gospels (matt,mark,luke) without any commentary in a side by side parallel format rocked my world.

Disillusioned JW

I formerly had a book which was a Harmony of 1st and 2nd Chronicles with both 1st and 2nd Samuel and 1st and 2nd Kings. Some critical scholars have said that Chronicles is a rewrite or revision of Samuel and Kings. I think that view of those scholars is correct.

3

Great books for Gospel Research

by peacefulpete in

among the first books i acquired in my research was an old copy of a harmony of the synoptic gospels for historical and critical study by burton and goodspeed.

before that i had heard others speak of the 'synoptic problem' but it was meaningless to me and just sounded like quackery meant to discredit the bible.

i have to say this one volume's laying out the synoptic gospels (matt,mark,luke) without any commentary in a side by side parallel format rocked my world.

Disillusioned JW

peacefulpete, I have the book called "A Harmony Of The Gospels For Students Of The Life Of Christ: Based on the Broadus Harmony in the Revised Version, By A. T. Robertson, M.A., D.D., LL.D., Litt.D., Chair of New Testament Interpretation Southern Baptist Theological Seminary Louisville, Kentucky". It is published by "Harper & Row, Publishers" and copyright in 1922 by them and copyright 1950 by The Citizens Fidelity Bank and Trust Co.". That Gospel Harmony was an eye opener for me, like the one mentioned by you was for you. I used to own a harmony based upon the ASV text, but the Broadus Harmony seems more precise to me in the way it grouped the parallel passages. The Preface says the following.

"It is now just thirty years since the day his young assistant suggested to Dr. John A. Broadus that he prepare a harmony of the Gospels that should depart from the old plan of following the feasts as the turning points in the life of Jesus.

... A generation has passed and it is meet that the work of Broadus should be reviewed in the light of modern synoptic criticism and research into every phase of the life of Christ. ... The Gospel of Mark appears in the first column, then Matthew, Luke, and John. It is now known that Matthew and Luke made use of Mark for the framework of their Gospels. This change simplifies amazingly the unfolding of the narrative.

There is still dispute concerning the historical worth of the Gospel of John, but the Johannine authorship is not disproved.

... No effort is made to reconcile all the divergent statements of various details in the different Gospels."

The back of the book in the "Explanatory Notes On Points Of Special Difficulty In The Harmony" in the section called "2. Synoptic Criticism" says the following.

"The criticism of the synoptic gospels has been able to reach a broad general conclusion that is likely to stand the test of time. The reason for this happy solution lies in the fact that the processes and results can be tested. It is not mere subjective speculation. Any one who knows how to weigh evidence can compare mark, Matthew, and Luke in the English, and still better in the Greek. The pages of the present harmony offer proof enough. It is plain as a pikestaff that both our Matthew and Luke used practically all of Mark and followed his general order of events. ... But another thing is equally clear and that is that both Matthew and Luke had another source in common because they each give practically identical matter for much that is not in Mark at all. This second common source for Matthew and Luke has been called Logia because it is chiefly discourses."

42

WT Ruining Members' Futures

by HiddlesWife in

what i mean by the title of this thread is what has happened to a relative of mine, one who is really upset about this factor:.

this relative is a distant cousin on my mother's side of the family.

she studied as a child and got baptized at 14 1/2 years old.

Disillusioned JW

Vanderhoven7, I was in error in what I said in my prior post about you. I just now noticed I had skipped over your introductory words of "Here is Mark Jones' experience."

42

WT Ruining Members' Futures

by HiddlesWife in

what i mean by the title of this thread is what has happened to a relative of mine, one who is really upset about this factor:.

this relative is a distant cousin on my mother's side of the family.

she studied as a child and got baptized at 14 1/2 years old.

Disillusioned JW

Vanderhoven7 I didn't know you are so young (compared to my age). I was baptized a few years before you were born. Is the photo you use on this site not really of you? I thought it was of you since you are officially an ex-JW and sometimes use your real name on this site and thus don't have to hide your identity on this site.

It is too bad what you experienced as a JW, but I disagree with some of what you said about the religion in your most recent post in this topic. For example, consider the following which was the case about the religion at least until I ceased attendance of regular JW meetings in about the year 2000.

The religion does not prohibit JWs from dating and marrying non-JW, despite the religion strongly urging JWs to avoid marrying non-JWs.

The religion does not forbid JW men to wear a beard, though it was frowned upon and though those with a beard typically did not get appointed within the congregation. Shortly before I stopped being a ministerial servant I started wearing a beard and no one in the congregation said anything to me about it. I later ceased being a ministerial servant but not for wearing a beard.

The religion does not produce a specific list of websites and literature to avoid. The religion states guidelines on which types to avoid and urges avoidance of certain kinds, but it never names specific web sites and specific books to avoid viewing. It leaves it up to the individual JWs to decide which specific sources to avoid. It does say to avoid apostate sites and literature, but even if an elder found out that a JW did read such the JW probably would not be expelled simply for doing such. In the late 1990s (including when I was a ministerial servant) I read on the internet some science articles about the discovery of new planets and of new discoveries of fossils (including about fossils which were claimed to support evolution). I also read articles about archaeological discoveries pertaining to claims of the Bible.

Regarding use of spare time and of hobbies, from early pre-teen years to the present I have had hobbies in science and inventing/inventions. I read books and articles about such. When I was under age 35 (including while a teen) I tried to invent things and I did science experiments at home. I didn't spend all of my free time in WT/JW activities, though I did spend much of my free time in such.

While in the workplace I socialized with some of my coworkers and while in the classrooms at school I socialized with some of my classmates. The religion does not forbid doing such. Like you however, while I was an active JW I avoided making JW friends outside of the classroom and the workplace, but the religion does not expel people from having non-JW friends.

349

Who really is the Faithful and Discreet Slave?

by Godlyman in

if anyone were to come up to you claiming that they are the faithful and discreet slave, how would you go about proving them to be false, based upon scripture?.

estephan.

Disillusioned JW

To those of you who spend a lot of time trying to understand the Bible better, including trying to figure out from the Bible who the faithful and discreet is, I recommend that you spend some time trying to find out if perhaps the Bible is not inspired by a God (any god), and if perhaps Jehovah/Yahweh God doesn't even exist. I say that because I spent a great deal of time studying the Bible in order to get a more accurate understanding of the Scriptures, while delaying extensive studying of scientific literature on evolution and while completely delaying the study of atheistic literature that promotes atheistic naturalism as a powerful truth. Had I both studied extensively the pro-evolution literature and had I studied the pro-atheism/naturalism literature much earlier in my life I would have saved a lot of time. That is because I eventually discovered that Jehovah/Yahweh God is not real.

If I am right that Jehovah/Yahweh God is not real (I am extremely confident he is not real), then there is no value (or nearly no value) in knowing whom Jesus and/or the writer of the biblical gospel book called "Matthew" meant by the term "faithful and discreet slave", other than possibly helping a person to decide if she/he should cease being a JW. Please think about that.