this month the last segment is about evolution.
one is with a sister with a university education in biochemistry who (presumably) teaches at a highschool or public school.
she says that left handedness of amino acids indicates life was created because "if it was a random process half would be right handed and half left handed" (paraphrased).
The bad news is that what they are presenting is not google-safe...
Some unsuspecting dub might be impressed by the PhD scientist who says that all fossils are exactly as in their present day form and decide to look for himself what a fossil bird looks like...
this month the last segment is about evolution.
one is with a sister with a university education in biochemistry who (presumably) teaches at a highschool or public school.
she says that left handedness of amino acids indicates life was created because "if it was a random process half would be right handed and half left handed" (paraphrased).
This month the last segment is about evolution. One is with a sister with a university education in biochemistry who (presumably) teaches at a highschool or public school. She says that left handedness of amino acids indicates life was created because "if it was a random process half would be right handed and half left handed" (paraphrased). Not only does this miss that there are right-handed amino acids in some living things, but all one needs to consider a slight selective pressure towards amino acids with the same handedness and there is simply no argument.
The other interview is with Davey Loos, a PhD in biochemistry. He is a real scientist but sells lasers today according to his linked in profile. He hints he was not allowed to question evolution during his education and then gives his scientific argument: "based on the theory of evolution we would expect to see an abundance of transitional forms to be present in the fossil record. But when we do look at the fossil evidence we just don't see it. We see that the major species come into existence at specific times and their form and structure is still exactly the same as their form and structure today." (not paraphrased). It is quite amazing to think he has a PhD and haven't bothered to google such an easily debunked lie. Then he gives the usual line about how biochemistry is just very complex.
So yah, that's it. Cut to music video.
sbf you annoyed me enough to deserve this.. gad saad's comments on the nonsensical gibberish of jacques derrida, michel foucault, and jacques lacan.
charlatanism of the highest order.
.... the first quote from derrida starts as 2:50.
SBF: Okay, just a few clarifying questions:
Constructionists accept the ordinary use of language and respect its usefulness. What we object to is the idea that this usefulness equates to identity with reality.
Two questions: Firstly, when a person say "the earth is round", that would then be a true statement in ordinary language? So if you were to object to it, you would in principle have to prefix your objection as: "Not speaking inordinary language then.."? If this is not the case, what determines ordinary language?
I agree words and abstract concepts are not reality.
What it means instead is a recognition that the everyday sense of words can be overturned at any time.
That's an interesting idea. What is the evidence that it is true? Could you outline a plausible scenario in which the everyday sense of the word "banana" could be overturned? Like an actually plausible everyday scenario where the everyday usage of "banana" would become something quite different?
I would object and say that since the everyday meaning of words remain quite stable over time, the "overturning" of the meaning of a word is a rare occurrence and when the meaning of a word changes it is usually insignificant as the two speakers realize they are talking about different things and therefore begin to use synonyms.
It's an approach to language a bit like wishing for a sterile operating theatre. We would want the theatre to be completely sterile for our operation. In the real world 100% sterile theatre cannot be achieved.
Okay but here is the problem: Cofty (for instance) don't step into the operating theater. He stays outside where words have the common-sense meaning and where you too are living most of your life. But then once in a while you choose effectively to analyze what Cofty says from the "operating theater" perspective despite you knowing well enough that Cofty is making common-language statements. Can you see why this might be a bit annoying?
sbf you annoyed me enough to deserve this.. gad saad's comments on the nonsensical gibberish of jacques derrida, michel foucault, and jacques lacan.
charlatanism of the highest order.
.... the first quote from derrida starts as 2:50.
In my experience, most pomo thinking revolve around the idea that language is both very important in terms of understanding the world and that language is somehow ill-defined or not objectively definable.. In my opinion this misses the very simple observation that language easily allows us to communicate complex ideas with high fidelity and this type of common-sense view of language has been and remains important to understand the world -- both if you are a 6 year old or a scientist.
Sure, pomo allows a certain way to talk about language and a certain standard for what constitute "proper" use of language and definitions that allows us to undercut language as a useful tool. Using this way of thinking one can then go on to prove (within the assumptions of pomo) that 1+2 might be 54 and the sun is flat or that a banana is worth the same as Microsoft. I suppose that might count as some sort of accomplishment, but so what? how does this make us any smarter? How can this be used to anything useful?
A person might say this way of thinking about language gives him or her satisfaction, that the idea that one can think up a way in which one can say that ones sockdrawer might be the gateway to Narnia is a deeply satisfying experience, but to me this is just undercutting the utility of language. Having a conversation on those premises reminds me of Ray McCooney
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMagY_CQopA
Where I think I would really disagree with pomo is that in my experience, people who promote extreme pomo views are not being consistent at all. SBF might say on one thread that we are wrong to say the sun is round, but in the next he is saying all sorts of factual thing about the real world like that the WT taught this or that previously.. the pomo standard of no objective truth is not as I see it being applied evenly at all and this does not seem honest. Pomo is more like something that get's pulled out on occasion to annoy Cofty or other scientifically minded people and when the job is done we are right back at using words with their usual meaning (apples are round, pizzas a circular and drain cleaner is not a kind of gravy); often this derision of ordinary language and it's use can happen simultaneous on two different threads which just seem bizarre.
I suspect this is true of most pomo writers who believe that all sorts of questions have objective answers when it suits them (what is my salary at the university? Is my spouse seeing someone else? did the mechanic repair my car? is my child ill?).
one sentence answers only.. here's mine:.
jws exist because people want an escape from the modern world and are willing to give up intellectual freedom to get it..
this was news to me, it's from a year and a half ago,.
from joe emerson at http://www.christianwitnesses.com.
bethelites told they weren’t doing enough, hadn’t reached their potential so about half of them walked out of the talk; efforts made to get names of those who walked out but didn’t get them all.
Sounds like bullshit
chelmsford looks to have much less work than in mill hill complex, if gb spirit guided why did they allow massive plans for new site when such significant changes must have been in discussion, planning , or contemplation.
knee jerk reaction to things looks to indicate someone or more on gb has instituted changes almost overnight.
my dog plans his day better, get up, walk, sleep, eat, walk some more, eat some more, and sleep again.
just a thought: With no printery, why do they need 280 people?
I mean, there's going to be a legal desk (and it could be outsourced to bethelites who work from home) and some filing cabinets?
chelmsford looks to have much less work than in mill hill complex, if gb spirit guided why did they allow massive plans for new site when such significant changes must have been in discussion, planning , or contemplation.
knee jerk reaction to things looks to indicate someone or more on gb has instituted changes almost overnight.
my dog plans his day better, get up, walk, sleep, eat, walk some more, eat some more, and sleep again.
Wifi: holy cow! Do you got any idea about the initially planer capacity?
i remember they did a feature on chelmsford on jw tv just before the reports of layoffs last year. Could be interesting to compare against
i was stalking to a jw today about her recent experience on the carts and with being a jw generally.
until this conversation i considered the carts as just an ineffective preaching method and a harmless waste of time.
but now i wonder if the effect of the carts might be to produce noticeable decline in jw numbers.
Terry:
In the old days (pre-Internet) witnessing was like gunslinging where you stood at the door and shot it out and watched the unindoctrinated bodies fall in a crumpled heap on the doorsill.
Post-internet, however, a conversation with another human being is likely to be more of a death trap for the JW because Ex-JW's have wallpapered with FACTS every search engine pitstop there is.
This is exactly my thinking. Going to someones door with a message is something I can easily see appeal to a person especially when he or she is convinced of the message... like you are easily the only religion around that really does that on a large scale. Standing still on a street with a cart and watch people walk by... you can just look around and next to you there is the hara krishna, the newspaper salesguy, the greenpeace or the other people who flag down people in the street and they are likely doing a much more active job than you.
i don't really engage in doctrinal discussions about jw's anymore.
they seem to say some pretty crazy stuff.
but i have read some threads discussing doctrinal changes and how watchtower is really out of ideas and money at the same time.
I don't see this happening. I simply think the current GB is too scared to change anything of significance and all their recent changes are motivated by need rather than a desire to *do* something.. like you get the illogical patchwork "fix" that is the overlapping generation doctrine.
That said you never now. I wouldn't have thought I would have seen anything but steady growth in the next decades and certainly not something like the current selloff. It remains to be seen if the sell-offs and reductions solved their money problems but if they didn't, they might panic.
