Posts by NewChapter

159

Believers, do you believe in evolution?

by everchangingworld in

after leaving, i still couldn't wrap my head around evolution (after the years of seing "intelligent design" in everything around me).. there's a series of videos that give a good intro to evolution and critical thinking.

they've probably been posted here before, but, for any new members, these are worth watching.. evolution: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdddbyilel0.

critical thinking: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6olpl5p0fmg.

NewChapter

NC why is a fall not logical in the context of evolution? For example if we take evolution to turn on the survival of the fittest, and if the fittest denotes what is most fit for its environment, then there must also be an awareness that the best, the most able bodied, the most gifted in human terms often have to die becasuse evolution does not select according to human paramaters.

Not really. With Evolution, there is no knowledge or forsight. That is an incredibly hard concept to grasp, for some reason, and I had a difficult time with it. I think it is because many of us embraced the idea of an intelligent agent behind creation, so we naturally looked for some kind of plan. But there is no 'awareness'. No awareness of what is the best, but simply responses to pressure.

Also, 'fittest' does not necessarily translate into most able bodied or even most gifted. "Fittest" in this context is a reproductive term only. It is a measure of Differential Fittness. How many offspring will an individual reproduce that can go on to have offspring? Those that have a higher rate will reproduce more offspring and, therefore, pass on more genes and more of their traits into the population which will effect the overall look of the species.

Does this mean that only the strongest survive? No. Not necessarily. It could mean a slight variation in trait that enables an individual to get more food. My slightly longer legs. There is a monkey that developed one very long nail and pointy nail that enables them to dig into trees for bugs. The longer nails can go deeper, and perhaps this is how the trait was chosen and the nail grew. Or maybe it was a mutation that was favored. Or a favorite examply is a peacock tail. The tails are heavy, wasteful because the take a lot of food to maintain. They make peacocks slower and more vulnerable to predators, so they shorten the life of the peacock in the wild. But the peahens just love those tails, and the more eyes the better. So even though the tails don't make the peacock stronger, they make them more popular with the ladies, so they will reproduce more, even if their lives are shorter, and they will pass on those lovely, sexy tails to their offspring.

In any case. Your hypothesis does not place the fault of a fall on humans, but on evolution which has no thought and is not in control of humans. They have done nothing wrong by not being able to produce more offspring, it just is what it is. Even if humans valued the traits as a group, for instance talents that are brought to the group, even if they revered the talents, if that individual doesn't reproduce, no matter how wonderful they are, the traits are not passed on. That is not the fault of humans, so why would that be considered a fall? Why would some kind of punishment be doled out for something that was completely out of the control of individuals living?

Why is a fall not logical outside the garden context? Because we are talking about a population of people, not two, and what happens in one environment may not happen in a different environment, so how can all humans be effected? It doesn't make sense. We are talking about a universal fall, but humans aren't universal. Northern humans developed blue eyes and light skin, but equatorial humans did not. So any adaptation will not effect everybody.

It simply can't be a 'fall' if populations are simply responding to selective pressures that make them better adapted to their environment. There is no higher or lower, there is only adaptation. As far as your comment on variety and homogeneity, those are opposite things, so I'm not sure exactly what you are saying. Whether evolution favors either or both only depends on the environment. Saying 'of course it does' makes this confusing. There is no of course. If there is variation that increases Fittness, then it will favor such. If the particular variation is not favored, then it will not. No variation at all (as with species that clone rather than reproduce sexually) would mean there is no variation to respond to environmental pressures, so no evolution. Their existence will be dependent on the environment staying favorable.

159

Believers, do you believe in evolution?

by everchangingworld in

after leaving, i still couldn't wrap my head around evolution (after the years of seing "intelligent design" in everything around me).. there's a series of videos that give a good intro to evolution and critical thinking.

they've probably been posted here before, but, for any new members, these are worth watching.. evolution: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdddbyilel0.

critical thinking: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6olpl5p0fmg.

NewChapter

Do I understand this correctly?

You say that humans were spirit, and after the 'fell' they were given animal skins, which for you, translates into a physical human body. (I'm referencing other posts I've seen you make.)

Satan was also a spirit, and he also 'fell'. Why was his spirit also not trapped in a body?

Of course, there are a lot of holes in your theory, and it is not logical in the context of Evolution. But since you know that, I'll leave it. I'm interested in the Satan question now.

Interesting that you go with this narrative, and an opposite narrative was brought out that Angels started with physical bodies and evolved into spiritual bodies. No evidence of this in the fossil record, but some accept it anyway.

It does give the impression that everybody just makes up a story to bring evolution and creation into line with each other.

159

Believers, do you believe in evolution?

by everchangingworld in

after leaving, i still couldn't wrap my head around evolution (after the years of seing "intelligent design" in everything around me).. there's a series of videos that give a good intro to evolution and critical thinking.

they've probably been posted here before, but, for any new members, these are worth watching.. evolution: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdddbyilel0.

critical thinking: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6olpl5p0fmg.

NewChapter

Kevun, no I don't believe spirits exist. If evidence ever presents, I will take another look at the issue, but at this point, I think probability is almost nonexistent that it will ever happen.

I don't believe in demons, gods, angels, magic, astrology, ghosts, pyschics, faith healing, or anything along those lines. I think that atheists also experience emotions that a believer may call spiritual, but since atheists also experience such emotions, then I have to conclude that it has nothing to with the spiritual but must be some universal emotions that humans feel, and some will claim it is a god.

159

Believers, do you believe in evolution?

by everchangingworld in

after leaving, i still couldn't wrap my head around evolution (after the years of seing "intelligent design" in everything around me).. there's a series of videos that give a good intro to evolution and critical thinking.

they've probably been posted here before, but, for any new members, these are worth watching.. evolution: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdddbyilel0.

critical thinking: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6olpl5p0fmg.

NewChapter

Well, 62 years ago, but if you must round up, I guess 100 is a valid number. So let's go with it. 100 years and the details are still not worked out for the followers. We know God's feeling on mixing wool and linen, and we know his feelings on boiling meat in milk or whatever, but this teeny, tiny question remains unanswered and up to the individual to work out all alone. That's my point. Why is it that when a greater point is being made, a person will focus on the minor details while skipping the point? It baffles me.

Anyway, I've put the question out there. There are no good answers. It's not my problem, because I don't need to reconcile my non-belief in a soul with Evolution because it fits just fine with no need to beat it into shape. It is of interest to me that this does not seem to concern or maybe even interest many very much, but it must be very uncomfortable trying to make it all fit, and you don't need me to keep sprinkling salt on it. I'll leave it at that, unless someone takes the challenge and gives an honest attempt to explain it in their own words and with conviction.

17

I had a Christmas card from Ewan Mcgregor

by Xanthippe in

jw
friends

oh ok so did everyone who supports unicef - but he's so gorgeous .

what's your favourite charity?.

NewChapter

My favorite is Doctors Without Borders.

159

Believers, do you believe in evolution?

by everchangingworld in

after leaving, i still couldn't wrap my head around evolution (after the years of seing "intelligent design" in everything around me).. there's a series of videos that give a good intro to evolution and critical thinking.

they've probably been posted here before, but, for any new members, these are worth watching.. evolution: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdddbyilel0.

critical thinking: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6olpl5p0fmg.

NewChapter

Really it is up to the inividual to reconcile their understanding of one with the other, as has been done down through the ages.

Not really. Evolution is quite new when compared to Christianity. And it took a while for bible believers to embrace it. Our understanding of it has grown a great deal since Darwin. It has been fairly recently that some churches have decided to go with science. So this is a pretty new problem to be worked out, and I don't think that many have given it deep consideration. They are only recently trying to reconcile the two ideas.

Yet unless one believes that all living things have a soul (spirit etc) that survives death, then there had to be a point where humans acquired such an ability. That would mean that at least one generation of children would have been 'complete' humans with physical and spiritual, and would have had parents that weren't 'complete' humans with something that survived death. It's a challenge. That's why nobody can answer it clearly. It's problematic, and I think you can only reason on it some much, before it must simply be accepted on blind faith. If it wasn't blind, there would be evidence, and therefore a way to find a satisfactory answer.

Yet, if we think about it, a creator would have known about Evolution long before Darwin, and it would have realized that humans would eventually crack that code, and it would have realized they would have been left struggling for answers about immortality in the context of Evolution. Not a minor question at all. This is a god that concerned itself with the mixing of wool and linen, and gave specific instructions. I wonder why it didn't leave some clues about this bigger question? Instead, humans are floundering for a way to make it all fit, with no real guidance. So I guess that means that each will just settle on a story that causes the least discomfort.

159

Believers, do you believe in evolution?

by everchangingworld in

after leaving, i still couldn't wrap my head around evolution (after the years of seing "intelligent design" in everything around me).. there's a series of videos that give a good intro to evolution and critical thinking.

they've probably been posted here before, but, for any new members, these are worth watching.. evolution: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdddbyilel0.

critical thinking: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6olpl5p0fmg.

NewChapter

We can't text for love, for compassion, for thoughts or other abstract thing, we can simly see the mind being active and neurons "firing" and so forth.

I don't find that a satisfying comparison. It's true, because we can't get into someone else's brain, that we can't prove what or who they love etc. But we still have evidence. We also can experience love ourselves. It can be tested to a degree. If someone cares for us, it shows. They could be lying, of course, but we don't have to doubt that love actually exists, because we are capable ourselves of experiencing love for others. So while we can misjudge such from person to person, we don't doubt that humans have the capacity to love.

When it comes to a soul, (or spirit or whatever----just trying to avoid the semantics argument) well we don't get anything at all. Just stories that there is something undetectable yet tangible within all of us. That is pure and blind faith.

But I was asking the question not to challenge the existence of the soul (spirit, etc) but to ask those that DO believe in the such things and Evolution, how you reconcile the two in your thinking.

159

Believers, do you believe in evolution?

by everchangingworld in

after leaving, i still couldn't wrap my head around evolution (after the years of seing "intelligent design" in everything around me).. there's a series of videos that give a good intro to evolution and critical thinking.

they've probably been posted here before, but, for any new members, these are worth watching.. evolution: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdddbyilel0.

critical thinking: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6olpl5p0fmg.

NewChapter

Before Angharad comes on here and says to take this to PM's, I suggest that if you have something you wish to address to me, personally, you PM me. Otherwise, please don't assume that if I do you the courtesy of commenting on a remark of yours...this is a discussion forum, remember...that I am "acting like you had not right". I have nothing against you. I don't assume you have something against me. Why can't you just be normal?

Interesting question. And perhaps if you had commented on my question, or furthered the discussion, you would have a point. But you just jumped on and accused me of bad motives for posing the question. And then, as usual, you followed with a personal insult.

Other than that, I thought is was a great and valid question that could have been led to some interesting discussion. But apparently it was a stumper and kind of crashed and burned. But there is no need to get irritated over the question itself. It's something to think about, and some people may decide they'd like to look into it for a better answer, so they are prepared when the question is posed again, or for their own benefit. If that happens, I'd say it was a pretty good question, if it makes people think. Some people like that.

I would have liked clear and even more discussion on it. I was writing a story about H. habilis, and thinking of how this spiritual thing would have started. Of course, the story is pure fiction, but it made me think. If some form of immortality was true, then how did it come about? At what would humans have begun to retain a certain form of consciousness after death? What would that feel like. Would the first humans be few and would they crave more company. Would it be haphazard---not all humans having it---so the spiritual population would grow slowly? I find it an interesting thought exercise, and thought maybe others would too.

So you see, when you assign motives to me, you are often incorrect. Yes, I am an atheist, but I still find other people's take on this interesting. You shot it down with little regard to my feelings, or interest in having a fascinating discussion. But that's okay, cuz I'm an angry atheist. Right?

And now to answer your question, since you asked. I wouldn't want to be normal for anything in the world!

64

more abuse in today's watchtower study

by solomon in

jw
friends

today's study picks on the most vulnerable among us.

the mentally ill. .

the watchtower apparently hasn't learned that depression and mental illness are that a medical condition.

NewChapter

You're right, it varies from person to person. But the fact remains, if it IS chemical, no amount of positive thinking is going to fix it. You can't will a chemical imbalance to correct itself.

Of course. And it's not postive thinking that I'm talking about, but isolating unrealistic thought patterns. What you find will not always be positive, but it should be realistic. Maybe you did do something wrong, and it needs addressed, but it does not need to be blown up into crazy proportions.

That said, chemical or not, focusing on some of these things will help and also prevent a person from aggravating a condition that is there. If you take the medicine, but give no effort to the thought process, then the medicine can only do what it does. It all works together. It took me a long time to believe that was true, but then I proved it to myself.

This is not about looking at the sunny side. Frankly, sometimes, there really is no sunny side, but about putting things into perspective and trying see beyond the current crisis and pain. It's hard work, and simply smiling all the time is not the cure.

64

more abuse in today's watchtower study

by solomon in

jw
friends

today's study picks on the most vulnerable among us.

the mentally ill. .

the watchtower apparently hasn't learned that depression and mental illness are that a medical condition.

NewChapter

Is it chemical---is it thinking patterns---does one cause the other---these are difficult questions to answer, and I'm pretty sure the balance varies from person to person----

However---

I have found that my thinking often brings on unnecessary emotions. Now, what I'm about to say does NOT mean that medication is not needed in many cases, but as a supplement to treatment. Everyone is responsible for their own decisions.

I don't think it is wrong to point to thinking patterns when dealing with depression. But telling a person to think positively is just silly. They aren't thinking in a balanced manner and they may not even be sure where the break-down is. Like telling a person to exercise and eat better---it's not helpful unless there are some specifics. What kind of exercises, for how long? What kinds of food?

Same with the thinking thing. It's important that a person learn how to isolate exactly where the thinking is going off track. And also to empower them with the knowledge that emotion follows thinking, not the other way around. At least I found this to be incredibly effective.

I used to catastrophize everything. It got pretty ridiculous, but I couldn't break the cycle of thoughts, and so my emotions would rev up as they did.

Maybe I was an half-hour late giving my daughter a dose of medicine. Well this was just unforgivable! I must not love her. Now the medication won't work properly! Maybe she'll get sicker. Maybe she'll die. That would make me a murderer of my own child. I'm a horrible person. I'm worthless. So much better if I wasn't born. I'm the worst mother in the world. If I was dead, someone better could take care of her.

That's pretty ridiculous thinking, but just the kind of cycle I would get caught up in. It wasn't until I learned that I was actually doing that to myself that I could get control of it. It helped me to change my POV. I would imagine a good friend coming to me and telling me the same things I was telling myself. I imagined how I would respond. Then I started responding to myself the same way I would respond to that friend. I was harsh with myself. I forced myself to do this and then I forced myself to listen to the alternative message. The message that said I was not the worst mother in the world, it was only 30 minutes late, she is not going to die because of this, I'm the best mother for her, and getting distracted or losing track was not unforgivable but very human. If being late with the dose REALLY would have meant that she would have been thrown into a medical emergency, then I would NOT have been late. Because I'm capable. Because she is important to me. Because I'm a good mother. And the fact that I would get upset with myself for being 30 minutes late just proves that. I care.

Other things that would get me into trouble was black and white thinking, all or nothing thoughts, and fortune telling. I just learned that most of what I worried about, most of what kept me up at nights, most of what made me want to give up just never happened.

I still fall into this sometimes, but now I have the skills to figure it out and do what I can to stop the pattern. Leaving god-belief behind has been very helpful. I no longer feel the need to scrutinize my every action, my every thought, my every emotion and analyze it and look for where it is wanting or weak or bad. We all need to do this to a certain degree, but when I thought there was some entity in my psyche evaluating my every move, I felt great pressure to look at all the horrible things they would see and try to fix, fix, fix them.

Guilt and fear were my biggest triggers. And yet, most of the guilt and fear was not based on the reality at hand. I learned that just because I feel guilty, it does not mean that I am guilty. It could mean I'm guilty, but I had to be realistic. If I felt guilty, I would actually start to search for reasons to feel that way---and trust me---I would find them. Now when I get some weird guilt from nowhere, I quickly look things over and let most of it go. The guilt follows. Sometimes the reasons are valid, but then I realize I'm blowing it to unreasonable proportions. Only a tiny bit of guilty is necessary, to learn a bit of a lesson, so I can move on better. I don't need to batter myself for days on end for some tiny infraction.