MeanMrMustard
JoinedPosts by MeanMrMustard
-
7
Making the site responsive
by will-be-apostate inhi admins.. i'm working as a part time web designer and developer.
i would like to let you know that i'd gladly make this site responsive.
that means it would fit any screen sizes properly.
-
-
-
153
One aspect of evolution that does not make sense.....
by EndofMysteries inthe part that does make sense are how bodies adapt over time to surroundings and use.
for example because of eating habits changing, our jaws have become smaller and we don't need wisdom teeth.
or the effect of the sun on our skin, etc.
-
-
MeanMrMustard
@EOM:
meanmrmustard - I understand that video concept and ofcoarse the smarter fish survive and pass on those genes, etc. Now let's say within that same video, they had sharks as well.
What WOULD make sense are that the fastest, quickest, and smartest fish would escape and those are the ones that by many generations would improve and get away.
Why would that make any more sense than the fish on the other end of the spectrum (the really slow ones) gaining an advantage by slowing down and simply blending into the surroundings (rocks and the like) as camouflage ?
See my inline comments marked in [brackets, bold, and italics], and then some further comments below it:
What would NOT make sense is that let's say the sharks absolutely hated jellyfish and suddenly [What do you mean by "suddenly". Even evolutionists wouldn't use such a word here] out of those same fish, [what do you mean "same fish" - remember individuals never evolve, ever] some developed the ability to look like those exact jellyfish that the sharks hate, according many people here, that could happen and they can't find anything to question how that makes sense. [I dont' think that is true. There have been examples given, some hypothetical, some real] Whereas how would they get the ability to look like something the predator doesn't like? Or camouflage, how did and WHY did camoflauge develop/evolve?
How would they get the ability to look like any surroundings? In the previous comment I was hinting that you were focusing in on the fast fish, as if they are "better", but they may not be. You seem to be stuck with a "i-can't-see-the-entire-series-of-steps-in-my-mind-therefore-it-must-not-be-able-to-occur" mentality. It is somewhat like the "irreducibly complex" fallacy.
If there is no thought process involved, what could cause the ability to look identical to your surroundings to evolve, what would trigger it?
There is no specific trigger. Just populations with traits, some better suited the the current environment than others.
What chemical response could possibly cause that?
It is not a chemical process, it is an inter-generational process involving populations.
And aside from the thought or idea of camouflage and hiding or blending in, where did the idea of copying and looking like surroundings get introduced?
Nobody comes up with the idea. It is not a thinking process.
Does not evolution teach that each thing evolved served a purpose and reason in response to environment and the loss due to no longer needing it?
No. That might be where you are hung up. There are simply: a) populations with variation, b) ununiform reproduction (some pass on, some don't, some pass on a little, some a lot), and c) the population shifts over time. These structures don't come about for a "purpose" per-se. The traits are magnified (selected upon) or not. The effect is what looks like purpose, but it is not.
MMM
-
153
One aspect of evolution that does not make sense.....
by EndofMysteries inthe part that does make sense are how bodies adapt over time to surroundings and use.
for example because of eating habits changing, our jaws have become smaller and we don't need wisdom teeth.
or the effect of the sun on our skin, etc.
-
-
MeanMrMustard
EOM,
Individuals never evolve. Populations evolve.
This "evolution" has nothing to do with thinking. No thought is needed. Evolution is a natural algorithm. Individuals within the population have variations for their traits. Those that pass on their traits "win" in the sense that the next gernation has a greater frequency of those traits. Over time, the population shifts. They don't have to think about shifting, simply surviving and making the next generation.
Here is an example. The evolutionary algorithm can be emulated in a computer. This individual created random "fish". Each fish is just a set of rules for swiming around and finding the randomly placed food. At first they are all quite stupid. But the ones that eat more are used to create the next gereration by crossing their genes. The fish don't think. They just get food, live, and pass on their traits. Notice how fast they turn from "stupid" to "smart".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fp9kzoAxsA4#aid=P-Vij_Q_eTY
MMM
-
-
-
MeanMrMustard
Discuss:
MMM
-
-
-
MeanMrMustard
I wonder if he said, "If you have any information, please contact..." - and the switchboard lights up! THERE HE IS!
MMM
-
-
-
MeanMrMustard
MMM
-
-
-
MeanMrMustard
MMM
-
46
Homosexuality, the GB and the Bible
by Oubliette inthe recent topics addressing the shamefully bigoted talk by jw gb member, anthony morris, on the subject of homosexuality got me thinking.
what the heck is up with the gb's obsession with this subject?.
as far as i can determine, jesus never said a single thing in reference to homosexuality.
-
-
MeanMrMustard
@krejames:
Sorry for the late response. Every now and then work gets in the way and I have to put the forum on hold. You wrote:
It's the comment "Being gay is wrong" that's a bit homophobic really. I appreciate a christian might have the view that men having sex with each other is wrong (that's the extent to which the bible addresses same gender sexual activity - it does not address homosexuality itself as a concept).
To illustrate: "being gay is wrong" is like saying "being from Jamaica is wrong". If a christian goes with what the Bible has to say, the most they can say is that it's wrong for men to have intercourse with each other. (using the Jamaican example, it's like saying it's wrong to eat jerk chicken hehe).
There is more to being homosexual than just having sex, though clearly that is a big part of it. What most fundamental religionists don't seem to recognise is that it's not so much about sex as it is about love, hopes and dreams and who you are
If one wanted to be really pedantic and use JW reasoning: take a look at the Insight Book Vol 1, under Crime and Punishment, page 549, under the heading Major Crimes Under The Law. Here the WTS interprets the words used at Lev 18:22 as "sodomy" (no 11 in the list). If this interpretation of a man lying with another man as a woman etc is correct (I'm not convinced to be honest), then as far as homosexuality is concerned, the bible only condemns sodomy. (Paul's scripture at 1 Cor uses an adaption of the hebrew word used in Leviticus).
The point being that the bible does not condemn homosexuality. That is why, to me as a gay man, Tony Morris' talk was so offensive when he ranted about many many many homosexuals being in the fashion industry. Does he not realise there are many many many homosexuals who are Jehovah's Witnesses? What message is he giving them apart from extra guilt and self loathing, knowing he thinks they are "disgusting"?
(edited - far too many mistakes and typos, sorry!)
Don't worry about any sort of typos. It is just a forum.
I see what you are saying. In essence, you are defining "homosexuality" as more of a sexual "orientation". In doing so, you make a distinction between being "gay" or "homosexual" and the phyiscal aspects that might come with that "orientation". Then you say that the Bible seems to be against the sexual acts of homosexuality, and not necessarily against the "orientation". If I have misunderstood, please feel free to set me straight.
So if you are a gay and a Christian, the only way you can be Bible-believing and homosexual is fully admit that your "orientation" is, at the very least, "incorrect" in God's eyes. Also, a homosexual Christian would have to live in such a way as to deny that orientation's effects. A homosexual Christian could fully accept that he is a homosexual, for whatever reason (nature vs. nurture doesn't matter here), but he would have reject the orientation as improper to act upon. I noticed in your response you said that being gay is "not so much about sex as it is about love, hopes and dreams and who you are". That makes sense. You accept that you are gay, and normally are proud of that. It is who you are.
But essentially, to be gay and Christian (remember, what I mean by this is a Christian that accepts the Bible, including Paul), you must reject all the hopes and dreams and love that comes with who you are - unless of course the "hopes" are NOT tied up in being with someone you love. And your "dreams" do NOT include being with the one you love. That seems unreasonable, though. This seems to go well with the "hate the act, not the person doing the act" reponse that Christians normally give.
One more question: why would you say the term "homophobic" is proper for someone who says being gay (orientation) is wrong? If what we mean by "homosexual" is the orientation, and all that goes with it, then Christians - in hating the ACT, not the ACTOR - have to conclude that it is "wrong" in the sense that it is "incorrect way of living" (can't pursue a life based on the orientation). Why are they "homophobic"?
MMM
(edit: also, to go with the theme of the thread, it still makes sense why those churches - including the WTB&TS - would condemn those homosexuals that do not admit their orientation is incorrect)
-
46
Homosexuality, the GB and the Bible
by Oubliette inthe recent topics addressing the shamefully bigoted talk by jw gb member, anthony morris, on the subject of homosexuality got me thinking.
what the heck is up with the gb's obsession with this subject?.
as far as i can determine, jesus never said a single thing in reference to homosexuality.
-
-
MeanMrMustard
@Phizzy:
There are good arguments, very convincing ones, that the Bible verses that appear to discuss Homosexuality do no such thing.
I don't see it. 1 Cor. 6:9 is pretty straight forward in just about every translation that exists.
It is a matter of considering the context, historical, societal etc and the meaning and usage of the original language words. Just taking an English translation, perhaps one produced by Homophobes like the W.T will not give an understanding of the original writers views.
It is not just the WT and the NWT - just do a search on 1 Cor 6:9 on bible.cc or biblehub.com (these sites display all sort of translations and versions together). It seems that each and every one of them got mistranslated it. How should it read?
MMM
-
45
Reminder: Hate speech on this forum is NOT tolerated
by Simon insome of the comments on the anthony morris topics have been despicable.. if someone is an idiot or a biggot then they are damaging themselves.. if 'we' start posting vile filth, insults and threats then it doesn't convince anyone other than we're probably as bad..
-
-
MeanMrMustard
" When did Jehovah move to New York?"
Jesus moved there in 1914, and Jehovah moved there in 1918 - duh!
MMM
