Posts by Lion Cask

19

Jehovah's Witnesses Take Pride In Being Ignorant

by minimus in

jw
friends

witnesses love to say they are in the best school available---the theocratic ministry school.

witnesses don't want you to express research on a subject when giving a comment during a meeting.

just read verbatim what is in the paragraph.

Lion Cask

Could it be it's a cult? I know that label is very, very offensive to Jehovah's Witnesses, so I never use it in conversation with them, but it's still a valid question for any organisation that revolves around religion. Maybe all of them are cults and it's just a matter of degrees. One could even question whether or not JWN is a cult and it would surely offend many people in here. So, being offended is understandable. If I am a Jehovah's Witness and someone has told me that I belong to a cult, I might be offended. It doesn't mean the question is taboo.

So, could it be it's a cult?

Most of the folks I know who are in it are happy. If only it didn't hurt people, then I'd be indifferent.

282

Non-evidence reasons why people embrace Evolution.

by hooberus in

jw
friends

evolutionists always claim that the reason why they believe in evolution and reject creation is due to "evidence".

they frequently use the opposite term "no evidence" in relation to any type of intelligent design, or creation, (and especially to genesis creation and flood history !).

their advocated beliefs always tend to include whatever is necessary to believe in to intellectually "explain" the existence of the universe, world, and its creatures without needing god).

Lion Cask

Is anyone who is actually reading all this stuff as exhausted as I am?

Go back and read Gladiator's post. He's a wise man. Ignore the intense avatar.

It would be good if this post ended soon. If not, may I be so newbie bold as to suggest a time out? Everybody in here is certain he/she is right and at the same time reasonable when none of us is right and some of us are unreasonable.

Unrelated, Shelbie, I saw this deluge coming at you and regret if I spurred it on, but some of your questions and answers confuse me. And it's maybe just me. As I get older I realise that we really don't get to understand anyone really well, especially over the internet, even after a decade. If you're happy believing what you believe and no-one gets hurt that's great. You'll get to live and die happy, and that's all that matters and don't let anyone tell you differently. I'll say the same thing to anyone on this board with the complete confidence that none has the same mind I do and will therefore never perceive reality as I do. Peace to you, sister.

Why do we argue about this stuff? Why is it all so important for people to see things the way we do?

282

Non-evidence reasons why people embrace Evolution.

by hooberus in

jw
friends

evolutionists always claim that the reason why they believe in evolution and reject creation is due to "evidence".

they frequently use the opposite term "no evidence" in relation to any type of intelligent design, or creation, (and especially to genesis creation and flood history !).

their advocated beliefs always tend to include whatever is necessary to believe in to intellectually "explain" the existence of the universe, world, and its creatures without needing god).

Lion Cask

Tammy, if I was Shelby I might wish to speak for myself, but I am not so I don't know if she's ok with it.

Shelby, I apologise if the avalanche between our posts was in any way caused by me. I'm ok, you're ok.

282

Non-evidence reasons why people embrace Evolution.

by hooberus in

jw
friends

evolutionists always claim that the reason why they believe in evolution and reject creation is due to "evidence".

they frequently use the opposite term "no evidence" in relation to any type of intelligent design, or creation, (and especially to genesis creation and flood history !).

their advocated beliefs always tend to include whatever is necessary to believe in to intellectually "explain" the existence of the universe, world, and its creatures without needing god).

Lion Cask

Do you accept the slightest, tiniest, remotest possibility that life evolved on this planet? (My question)

I do! I have NEVER said that I do NOT. I do NOT, however, accept that life "evolved" from a common ancestor, but rather was CREATED from that one common ancestor... the One who is the Life... that his essence was used to create ALL life in the physical world... which is why there is commonalities at the basest point of life, DNA... and that after creating the "kind" and from that the genus... many, many, many species "evolved" from those... with one exception: humans. Like seraphs, they are the only species of their "kind" genus. (Your answer)

I have stated that so many times I cannot count, so I hope THIS time clarifies, dear LC.

Yes and no. It is clear this time, Shelby, and it is still muddy. You do, but you don't. Or you do, but only according to a non-negotiable set of rules you agree with. You believe that live evolved, but you also believe that it was created? I guess I'm being thick, too. Please bear with me. Are you saying THE ONE is responsible for abiogenesis, from which all organisms sprang forth over hundreds of millions of years with the exception of humans, who are the product of a special, separate creation that happened but a very short time ago?

It sounds like you will accept nothing less than the hand of God in the existence of life on earth and absolutely nothing can convince you otherwise. Do I have it right?

p.s. Please look up the definition of genome.

282

Non-evidence reasons why people embrace Evolution.

by hooberus in

jw
friends

evolutionists always claim that the reason why they believe in evolution and reject creation is due to "evidence".

they frequently use the opposite term "no evidence" in relation to any type of intelligent design, or creation, (and especially to genesis creation and flood history !).

their advocated beliefs always tend to include whatever is necessary to believe in to intellectually "explain" the existence of the universe, world, and its creatures without needing god).

Lion Cask

Well, I think someone should explain the evolution of life as if to a fourth grader, and I don't mean that in a condescending way at all. Because at this point, even I am wondering why it isn't just a simple explanation. And I don't mean using simple terms/words, because I think Shelby has a good grasp on those, and someone like me can just look up their definition.

Perhaps someone could just simply explain how life evolved from 'whatever' and then became all the different kinds, families.

I like your question, Tammy, because it tells me you would really like to know the truth. Keep asking questions but also seek for yourself.

There is no simple explanation. It would be like trying to explain relativity to a fourth grader. A fourth grader will not have the mental horsepower to understand, at least none that I have known. It is a large piece of a giant jigsaw puzzle which for me took decades to assemble, and even then my understanding is woefully lacking. The piece of the puzzle I do see, however, is far more convincing than what Genesis has to offer as an explanation for the complexity of life on earth.

282

Non-evidence reasons why people embrace Evolution.

by hooberus in

jw
friends

evolutionists always claim that the reason why they believe in evolution and reject creation is due to "evidence".

they frequently use the opposite term "no evidence" in relation to any type of intelligent design, or creation, (and especially to genesis creation and flood history !).

their advocated beliefs always tend to include whatever is necessary to believe in to intellectually "explain" the existence of the universe, world, and its creatures without needing god).

Lion Cask

The Neanderthal genome has been sequenced. Somewhere around 3% of the modern Eurasian genome is traceable to Neanderthals. You probably have some Neanderthal genes yourself.

My understanding is that about 2/3rds of the neanderthal genome has been sequenced, very little of that nuclear. The gaps have been filled by computer interpolation models. However, I was not aware there are any neanderthal genes (ie complete DNA sequences) consistently found in modern humans. I'll look into it. Thanks.

282

Non-evidence reasons why people embrace Evolution.

by hooberus in

jw
friends

evolutionists always claim that the reason why they believe in evolution and reject creation is due to "evidence".

they frequently use the opposite term "no evidence" in relation to any type of intelligent design, or creation, (and especially to genesis creation and flood history !).

their advocated beliefs always tend to include whatever is necessary to believe in to intellectually "explain" the existence of the universe, world, and its creatures without needing god).

Lion Cask

You're misstating the taxonomy (i.e., hominid is the family, homo is the genus, and neanderthalensis/sapien are supposedly the species), but I understand what you mean...

You and I are both hominids, Shelby. We are also homos (now, don't go ahead and get funny with that statement, girl) and we are both of the same species. H. neanderthalensis and H. sapiens are both hominids. You are splitting hairs.

Then prepare to be surprised, dear one, as apparently it has survived... even down to this day. Indeed, the entire Eurasian population possesses neanderthal genomes:

Isn't it interesting how you poo poo scientific opinion that challenges your beliefs yet endorse those that support them? Then again, do you really endorse the article you put forward? Regardless, I should have been more specific (as I am learning from your hominid comment) and said that to my knowledge no neanderthal DNA sequence, partial or otherwise, exists in modern humans. That said, the article you have cited is still theoretical and not all paleoanthropologists will agree with it. It could be yet proven right, and I could be surprised and also delighted to have learned something new. It happens all the time when one's mind is open to discovery.

Yes, I understand what you're saying... and I have stated that I believe in evolution within the species; however, when two different species mate the offspring species is sterile, thereby cutting off (well, actually, slamming the door on) further "evolution."

No, my dear, the door is slammed on devolution. Evolution is a one way street. The general rule is "up or out".

But what was found is that ALL Eurasian homo sapiens... carry neanderthalic genomes

Nope. Studies indicate the presense of tiny genetic remnants. Not even partial neanderthal DNA sequences, and certainly no genomes are found since a genome is the full DNA sequence of an organism. Your terminology miscue aside (it happens in conversation, no biggie), where did the remnants come from? Were they already present in a common neanderthalensis/sapiens anscestor and were not, in fact, passed on from hybrids?

Smile. Okay. Reminds ME of what we used to tell householders, but if you say it's not the same thing, then it's not the same thing.

Ok, Shelby, you're right again. I am making an assertion based upon an impression gleaned from reading dozens of your posts and I could be wrong. I accept that I have been wrong on many occasions and accept that you are telling me that I am wrong about you now. You are telling me your mind is open. A direct and honest answer to a single question will clear it up.

Do you accept the slightest, tiniest, remotest possibility that life evolved on this planet?

282

Non-evidence reasons why people embrace Evolution.

by hooberus in

jw
friends

evolutionists always claim that the reason why they believe in evolution and reject creation is due to "evidence".

they frequently use the opposite term "no evidence" in relation to any type of intelligent design, or creation, (and especially to genesis creation and flood history !).

their advocated beliefs always tend to include whatever is necessary to believe in to intellectually "explain" the existence of the universe, world, and its creatures without needing god).

Lion Cask

Ah, thank you for clearing that up, Tammy. Shelby, I apologise for messing up your name. Won't happen again.

I should mention, Shelby, that back in 1979 I belonged to a group called Toastmasters, whose sole purpose was to provide a venue for people to speak on topics of their own choosing. On one occasion I addressed an audience on the subject of evolution through natural selection. My objective was to refute it and I used as my research material the most lucid and logical creationist arguments I could find. I was convinced at that time that belief in evolution was just that, a belief, and I naively perceived my argument as devastating. In the audience was a professor from the local university of which I was an undergraduate science alumnus. At the next meeting, he invited me to read some well thought out papers that addressed the very things I brought up in my dissertation. I was supremely confident in my position so took him up on his offer. I actually scoffed at most of what I read and dismissed it out of hand. I just would not, could not, believe it to be anything but science fiction. In short, I refused to understand. There was no eureka moment years later, like a light just coming on all of a sudden, but a very slow dawning in my mind. At first a little doubt, followed by troubling doubt, followed by a long period of not thinking about it, then wanting to understand, then a gradual change of mind. I guess what I am saying to you is I fought hard to retain my creationist beliefs but in the end it was I myself who shot them down. I will not be able to help you see things differently, of that I am certain, because you really can't see things differently until you entertain the possibility that what you believe might just be inaccurate and then embark upon a voyage of discovery on your own.

282

Non-evidence reasons why people embrace Evolution.

by hooberus in

jw
friends

evolutionists always claim that the reason why they believe in evolution and reject creation is due to "evidence".

they frequently use the opposite term "no evidence" in relation to any type of intelligent design, or creation, (and especially to genesis creation and flood history !).

their advocated beliefs always tend to include whatever is necessary to believe in to intellectually "explain" the existence of the universe, world, and its creatures without needing god).

Lion Cask

I never thought I'd say this, but your response was a little too brief, Shelley. However, it is perhaps better if I provide a summary of what I think, as you request, and you can tell me what you think about what I think. Ok?

I subscribe to the majority perspective that homo neanderthalensis was a distinct hominid species that branched off independently from homo sapiens and the two hominids coexisted. I would be surprised if there was no interbreeding, given homo's penchant for interspecies sex (bestiality) but I would not be surprised if any H. neanderthalensis genetic material failed to survive much beyond single generations of progeny. A simplistic parallel can be found in the Equidea family. Horses and donkeys are distinctly different species which share similar, but obviously not identical, genomes. Horses breed with donkeys to produce mules, but mules are almost always sterile. The fossil evidence indicates that H. neanderthalensis died out about 30,000 years ago, while H. sapiens thrived. Why? Don't know. Genocide? Perhaps, but that is pure speculation.

282

Non-evidence reasons why people embrace Evolution.

by hooberus in

jw
friends

evolutionists always claim that the reason why they believe in evolution and reject creation is due to "evidence".

they frequently use the opposite term "no evidence" in relation to any type of intelligent design, or creation, (and especially to genesis creation and flood history !).

their advocated beliefs always tend to include whatever is necessary to believe in to intellectually "explain" the existence of the universe, world, and its creatures without needing god).

Lion Cask

Congratulations on your lucid, to the point post, Shelley.

I do apologise for skirting around the issue. You are quite right. I am. After going back and reading scores of your posts I have no enthusiasm for entering into a long conversation with you. Your faith is manifestly graven in stone. The prospect of exhaustive debate with someone who has already made his (in your case, her) mind up is not an appealing use of my time. Besides, my motives for joining this board are not to indulge myself in debate, and I am splitting my time in here as well as other sites, most notably jwfacts.com. While conversation that is informative or entertaining might be a happy byproduct, I'm here to educate myself on the WTS in an effort to extricate members of my family from its grip. It matters not to me if they abandon or retain their Christian faith, but it does matter to me that they see the WTS for what it is. That I know for certain you understand.

However, please allow me to ask a direct and focussed question the answer to which might help me understand where your head is at. On a number of trips to NYC I've taken the opportunity to spend hours upon hours in the Hall of Human Origins where I've examined exceptional examples of hominid fossils, including Neanderthal specimens. Neanderthals are regarded by some anthropologists as a subspecies of modern humans - homo sapiens neanderthalensis - and by others as a separate human species homo neanderthalensis. Whichever latin moniker you choose, the fossil evidence is that Neanderthals were physiologically much different from modern humans.

What is your take on Neanderthals?