Posts by Liberty

72

CREATIONISM----F.Y.I

by nakedmvistar in

in the midst of the debates -- or wars -- concerning the issues of creation and evolution, there is a tendency to over-generalize.

both sides often refer to the opposing side with the broad term of either "evolutionist" or "creationist.

" and yet there exists within both sides a great deal of variety and even controversy.

I just wanted to provide some food for thought to the Creationists as regards "transitional species". The change, or evolution, of life forms is clearly demonstrated by numerous examples from the real world which do not fit neatly into an intelligent design model. Why would God design frogs and toads to begin life in exactly the same way fish do, requiring water for their fertilization and early development as soft shelless jelly-like eggs, which would dry out and die without the surrounding water? Why are the young larval frogs and toads like fish in every way including fins and gills having no limbs and requiring a liquid water environment to survive in until they develope legs and lungs for living on land? If this isn't a window into an evolutionary process and a perfect example of radical change in a "transitional species" then what is it then? Creationists go on and on about God's set "kinds" yet in a few short months we see one "kind" change into a completely different "kind" in the same animal for no "intelligent" reason I can see. Billions of amphibians die off every year because there is not enough liquid water in their environments to sustain them since they live in an unreliable water supply on dry land thousands of miles from the safety of the constantly wet oceans. I see no sign of intelligence in such a wasteful silly design based upon the accidents of weather.

At the other extreme are whales which live exclusively in the deep oceans yet are required to breathe air and maintain a constant body temperature at great cost to them because they are mammals. Why would an intelligent creator put an animal in water for its entire life yet require it to breathe air and keep its body at a higher temp. than the surrounding water? Why did God create monotremes, animals with fur that do not maintain a constant body temp. which lay eggs and nurish their young with milk from skin glands but not provide nipples like the platapus and echidnea. Why did God make them half like a reptile and half like a mammal? Why don't bats and birds have three sets of limbs so that their wings are seperate from their front limbs allowing them to both fly and have usuable limbs like every other animal? It is clear that bird and bat wings evolved from their front limbs as all bats and some birds still have their clear fingers and claws as part of the wing which makes using them awkward or even useless.

This is intelligent? These and many other animals look more like a hodge podge of accidents and chance than a carefully thought out design by a super being. Even we humans start as aquatic beings in our larval-embyonic stage looking like and living like fish in a liquid and not in the air like a human being. Was God a fish? He must be since we were made in his image.Why go through all these silly changes? Why not just look like a little tiny human right from the start. Why do we have tails and gills which wastefully grow and then disappear? Seems silly to me. Just something to think about.

Edited by - Liberty on 27 September 2002 10:28:39

Edited by - Liberty on 27 September 2002 10:30:0

Edited by - Liberty on 27 September 2002 11:29:0

72

CREATIONISM----F.Y.I

by nakedmvistar in

in the midst of the debates -- or wars -- concerning the issues of creation and evolution, there is a tendency to over-generalize.

both sides often refer to the opposing side with the broad term of either "evolutionist" or "creationist.

" and yet there exists within both sides a great deal of variety and even controversy.

Liberty

Part of the problem in having a debate between Bible Literalist/Creationists and skeptic/science type folks is that we speak a different language and think in different patterns. For example, you CANNOT understand evolution or any branch of science by relying on "nutshell" versions based on short concise answers which wrap the whole thing up neatly. You can get a "nutshell" version of Christianity however, because the concepts are more simple. God is, He makes everything, angels and man rebel, death and suffering results, God's son sent as redeemer and he brings hope for end of suffering.

Christians are used to short concise explainations and they expect the same mind set from science. Unfortunately there is no such thing in science since the Universe is not seen as a revealed truth from a super being who gives us all the answers. In science we find the answers on our own through observing nature. This is a complex and time consuming adventure. To understand science you must devote a great deal of time and study in many special fields. It is obvious from the many replies from the pro Creationist camp that there is a severe lack of understanding when it comes to the scientific method and evolution. The most common argument I've seen against evolution (and science) is that it is just a faith based religion with its own agenda. This shows the depth of the misunderstanding about science prevailent in the Fundie religious community and the poor science curriculum in public schools which are limited by the school boards who are dominated by Fundies.

The pro science camp must argue against the strawman " Satanic/Atheistic science conspiracy" which the Fundies think they understand so we really never get to a discussion of the real evidences science provides. In short, we are on entirely different wave links which makes a good debate very difficult because one side has no idea about what they are arguing against. I was a Christian. I studied the Bible and its apologists so I understand the Creationist point of view as if it were my own because once it was my own. The vast majority of Creationists have NOT studied science and have no understanding of its principles. I don't say this as a debating trick or insult it is just the way it is. I challenge you to make a serious study of these subjects before you dismiss them so easily.

There is no anti God agenda in science. Science is not the study of invisible/silent super beings so it does not address the God problem at all in the same way English teachers do not try to explain Chinese grammer rules. Science has disproved much of the accuracy of the literal Bible because the Bible is a visible book which has a sequence of events laid out in the physical realm which can be studied and proven to be true or false but God cannot be studied in His present form. Science cannot prove God does or doesn't exist in the same way English can't prove that Chinese grammer is right or wrong. Besides the Bible, I am unaware of any proof for God's nature,character, or existance. If He exists then He has chosen to remain indetectable to us so His reality loses its importance in the same way that a distant alien race on a planet far away who have never communicated with us is "real" or unreal.

Edited by - Liberty on 25 September 2002 17:25:52

Edited by - Liberty on 25 September 2002 17:27:23

Edited by - Liberty on 25 September 2002 17:31:37

Edited by - Liberty on 25 September 2002 17:55:44

27

Reason why I reject the Bible

by refiners fire in

jw
friends

some christian clear this up for me willya?

christians are saved thru the mediation of christ right?

if thats the case, will someone tell me why god spent 3000, 2000 years, however long, stuffing around with patriachs and israelites?

Liberty

Hi Refiner's Fire,

When a religious fanatic can't answer a question they usually resort to name calling and attacking the questioner because it distracts them from any doubts the question may be causing in their own minds. It is clear that the concept of God "favoring" a certain tribe as His Chosen People is flawed from the start. It is unfair beyond all morality, like a father rejecting all his children but one just because he wants to prove that this child will turn out rotten no matter the level of attention given while the others are left to chance, and as it turns out this "chosen" status merely results in punishments as they are "disciplined" mercilessly again and again for their inability to meet this harsh father's demands.

A super spirit being capable of creating the Universe is surely smarter than this. The Bible and its silly stories are, by all measures of reason, man made...otherwise, God must be insanely cruel and irrational. Fanatic Fundies are so married to the literal Bible because it is their only real tangable link to God's existance. There is NO other evidence for God's reality since we have recieved no other communications from Him and fundies know this deep down which is why they fight so irrationally to defend the Bible's literalism because their God disappears into the vapours without it. Their God joines the ranks of Zeus, Thor, and a thousand other make believe beings from primitive tribes who have been diminished into nonexistance by the Age of Reason. Your question is reasonable and valid and it is up to the Bible literalist to present evidence or explainations which are rational since it is their beliefs and not ours.

46

Questions For The Skeptics (Unbelievers)

by Zechariah in

jw
friends

i have announced i am on a crusade to encourage skeptics to think on the issue in a way they probably have never done before.

i initially have made the mistake of cramming everything into one, two or three posts.

this i should have immediately recognized is an impossibilty because what i have in mind requires a great amount of meditation to fu;;y comprehend.

Liberty

Hi Zech,

You ask that, as a skeptic, I should admit that I am close minded and would refuse to look at any evidence for God's reality. If I did "admit" such a thing it would be a lie because I am happy to look at any evidence that God is real. Unfortunately, no one ever presents any and I've looked really hard. The Earth, on the other hand is literally full of evidence for evolution and a long history beyond the imagination of the Bible writers.

As far as your other point goes, if you only believe in God to hedge your bets then isn't this worse than honestly not believing at all? If I were God I would be more angry at the fakes than with honest disbelievers. Wouldn't God know you were serving Him "just in case"? I guess I don't understand your point. Also, why would God expect us to believe in Him anyway since He never communicates with us. Can I just show up one day and claim I'm your boss and then demand to know what you've done for me in the last 20 years and if I'm disatisfied I'm going to kill you all the while you never knew you were working for me nor did I ever tell you what I expected? This wouldn't be fair, would it? Yet this is what it would be like if God really expected us to worship Him and judged us without spelling out from the start in a clear way what is demanded and why.

Edited by - Liberty on 23 September 2002 16:22:13

46

Questions For The Skeptics (Unbelievers)

by Zechariah in

jw
friends

i have announced i am on a crusade to encourage skeptics to think on the issue in a way they probably have never done before.

i initially have made the mistake of cramming everything into one, two or three posts.

this i should have immediately recognized is an impossibilty because what i have in mind requires a great amount of meditation to fu;;y comprehend.

Liberty

As someone else has already tried to explain to you, most of the skeptics here are "open minded" because we were exposed to years of study from both sides of these arguments. As JWs we close mindedly believed in the literal Bible as the word of God but when the internal contradictions and silliness of Bible literalism made us question our faith we studied the other side of the arguments as well. Your problem is that you yourself have Not studied the other side in detail, as is evidenced by your lack of understanding when it comes to evolution and your tooth count "problem". It is you who are close minded and one sided because you have not made a serious study of your opposition.

The very definition of being a skeptic is to be open to the evidence no matter where it takes you. Evidence and NOT blind faith is the hallmark of rational thought and free thinking as a skeptic. You need to take several years of University level classes on the subjects you disbelieve before you can dismiss them so easily. I've already spent years studying your Bible and the apologetics which surround it and then I spent years taking classes and doing independant study of the sciences. After looking at ALL the evidence it was clear which was physically provable and which was cultural baggage nonsense. You must make the same study before you can claim to know the answers. When you are prepared to present some evidence then I will be open to looking at it. I want to believe I will never die and that a super being cares about me but unfortunately all the evidence I've seen says that we live in a Universe guided by random neutral events where I will cease to be. This is harsh reality. Our beliefs or faiths do not change the facts. Reality exists whether we accept it or not. Ask the millions of sick and dying JWs if their years of faith in the New System of Things will stop their deaths. Those who pray and believe get old, sick, and die just like the pagans and skeptics. God's silence is just as deafening to us all.

Edited by - Liberty on 23 September 2002 10:42:16

86

Carbon Dating

by Wolfgirl in

sorry, i don't have time to search the site right now.

this bloody french isp is rubbish, and i keep getting dropped when i try anything that takes more than 10 seconds.

has the society ever come up with any intelligent reasoning to counter the ages that carbon dating/science has given to various artifacts, i.e.

Liberty

Hi Wolfgirl,

I'm no expert but my Geology prof. explained that Carbon dating is limited by the regular decay rate of the carbon 12 isotope to about 36,000 years. Within this 36,000 year window the error margin is 50 to 300 years. This error margin is frequently sited by JWs and other Fundies as the reason we cannot trust this dating method. This argument is quickly destroyed however, by realizing that 36,000 years is still plenty of time to prove that all the Watch Tower's post-human-creation events (the last 6000 + years) are easily datable to be older than any thing the Watch Tower teaches is possible even if there were a 1000 year margin of error. If human remains are dated at 30,000 years ago for example the error margin could mean anywhere between 30,300 to 29,700 years ago which still disproves the Bible's own chronology by several thousands of years older. This is why the Bible's story of human creation and the Flood are proven false by Carbon dating alone not to mention all the other evidences which converge to prove beyond any reason that these biblical stories are fairy tales. The Watch Tower relies on common peoples' ignorance of the real facts to sell their Creationism nonsense.

Edited by - LIberty on 20 September 2002 16:18:10

72

CREATIONISM----F.Y.I

by nakedmvistar in

in the midst of the debates -- or wars -- concerning the issues of creation and evolution, there is a tendency to over-generalize.

both sides often refer to the opposing side with the broad term of either "evolutionist" or "creationist.

" and yet there exists within both sides a great deal of variety and even controversy.

Liberty

Hi Perry,

Evolutionists "require" nothing because science isn't trying to do anything but come up with viable explainations for phenomenon based upon evidence observed in the natural world. Because they are not trying to appease an invisible super being there is no implicit pressure which "requires" an authorized conclusion. Despite the attempt by Creationists to equate science with faith based religion, science is NOT based on faith, it is based on evidence. The sciences, including evolutionary science, do NOT claim to have an ultimate Truth they are trying to prove, unlike religion, but are merely allowing truths about the natural world to be revealed and then formulated into viable explanations known as paradigms, which are models of how something might work using the best available evidence. Paradigms are not dogmatic beliefs held as Truth approved by a super being authority figure who punishes you if you get it wrong so they in NO way resemble religions. Scientists or even laymen who refuse to accept prevailent paradigms are not persecuted or threatened with punishments, they are merely asked to provide evidence which will over turn the prevailent paradigm in favor of their new one. This happens all the time, one huge paradigm shift occurred when Geology accepted the Shifting Tectonic Plates paradigm to replace the Steady State model. Science is always changing based on the evidence while religions resist change because it calls into question their central authority. No such central authority exists for science.

47

Does God still exist for you?

by nakedmvistar in

i'm quite new to this forum (only a handful of posts).

but from what i've read up to now, it seems apparent that some of you have abandoned your belief in a god.

is this because of trauma brought about by the jw religion?

Liberty

Hello again Neon,

I was very happy to hear that you are in college and on your way to a good job. Living well is the best revenge against the Watch Tower Cult so I'm glad that you didn't let them stop you from getting a "worldly" education. I appreciate the reasonable tone in the responses you have given and I hope I haven't come off sounding like too much of a know-it-all. I've been out (of the WTS) for a long time now so I forget how hard it is to let go of all our beliefs at once. I held on to many Christian concepts for years so your points are perfectly understandable.

I had many questions that bothered me about my beliefs so I studied the Bible and science looking for answers and my only point in posting is to let others benifit from what I've found so you won't waste as much of your life (or money in college) as I did. My questions prompted me to take many hours of science classes not required for my degree. I really enjoyed taking these classes even though it put me way behind in getting my degree and cost me lots of money but I wouldn't recommend this path unless you are obsessesd with knowing the real truth about the Bible and science and are bull-headed about seeing the evidence for yourself and not trusting what others tell you.

Noah's Flood is one of the more disturbing stories in the Bible for me even as a child growing up as a JW. I kept aquariums, both fresh and salt water, so I knew the biological implications of flooding the planet as described in the Bible. I could not reconcile for myself how there could still be delicate coral reef communities left throughout the world if they had been covered by billions of gallons of fresh water and silt just a few thousand years ago. I knew from experiance that nearly all sea life would have been driven into extinction by the Flood so how could the oceans be so full of this life today? If the Flood's waters were salty then the same problem would exist for all the fresh water communities still alive today? These problems are really unsolvable, especially if there was no evolution as is taught by the Watch Tower Society. It is clear that the reef, lake, and river communities have been stable for tens of thousands of years leaving no room for a Noah and his Flood. This Flood also creates numerous problems for the distribution of land plants and animals throughout the isolated far corners of the Earth which are now seperated by vast oceans in the post Flood era. How did plants and animals get from a central distribution area (the Ark) across the oceans to repopulate the earth in just a few thousand years? Why did Australia have such unique life forms found nowhere else if it was populated from the same Ark survivor's as everywhere else? The questions go on and on and the Bible does not answer them. All the physical evidence clearly says that a Global Flood never happened even in the distant past, let alone, just a few thousand years ago as the Bibles own internal chronology demands.

This is just one of many nonsensical Bible stories which makes me seriously wonder about the truthfulness of the whole book. How can Christ and his sacrifice be real if the surrounding stories have proven to be untrue? If there was no original sin why is Christ even necessary? If God is real why does only a fraction of the World's population have His favor through being Choosen people or in a culture where a Holy inspiration is given? Why not give everyone the same holy book at the same time? The Bible presents a God who is racist, unfair, violent, illogical, inconsistant, wasteful, and in short, has every human flaw. So much of it makes so little sense and I haven't even gotten into the Creation, Cain and Able, the Tower of Babel, Job, etc. You say you're taking a logic class so stop and apply what you've learned to the Bible. Is it logical? Does its claims fit reality and the evidence we can see all around us? Look objectively at the Bible just as you would the Koran or the Book Of Mormon. Why is the Bible true and the others false? Does the Bible really make more sense than the Book Of Morman when seen without your cultural bias? You must answer these questions yourself. Good luck in your own search for truth.

72

CREATIONISM----F.Y.I

by nakedmvistar in

in the midst of the debates -- or wars -- concerning the issues of creation and evolution, there is a tendency to over-generalize.

both sides often refer to the opposing side with the broad term of either "evolutionist" or "creationist.

" and yet there exists within both sides a great deal of variety and even controversy.

Liberty

Hi Naked,

Nice post but I would disagree about comparing the preconcieved notions of the scientific method and Creationists. There is a vast difference between science and Creationism. Science is based upon observations from the nature while Creationism is driven by religious faith in the supernatural. Invisible super beings are the first cause in Creationism and such beings cannot be discovered by any known scientific method therefore all the research that follows is faith based, in essence using natural phenomenon to prove the supernatural (trying to prove that which is unprovable). God, gods, or other supernatural beings would have to make themselves known in the physical realm before they can become the subject(s) of a true scientific study. Science is the study of the natural world and not of the supernatural.

If, for instance, I claim my car was hand made by the ghost of Henry Ford scientists could study the car and even draw conclusions about its materials and manufacture but could not prove that a ghost made the car unless Henry Ford appeared to them in an observable form and demonstrated how he made my car. Since God or any other gods have so far not appeared to scientists for study in an observable form they are as real as Henry Ford's ghost. Studying the earth to prove that gods exist is as futile as studying my car to prove Ford's ghost exists. Adding a document which states that Ford's ghost inspired its writing and then describes how and why he built my car is not that helpful except that if it describes a process which proves to be false when compared to the actual car it only proves that the document itself is faulty, further straining the credability of the ghost story in the first place.

Edited by - Liberty on 18 September 2002 11:44:3

47

Does God still exist for you?

by nakedmvistar in

i'm quite new to this forum (only a handful of posts).

but from what i've read up to now, it seems apparent that some of you have abandoned your belief in a god.

is this because of trauma brought about by the jw religion?

Liberty

Hello Neon,

I wasn't spoiling for an argument I was just stating my opinion. However, I enjoy a good debate as well as anyone so I'll answer your challenge. Maybe I "poisoned the well" but you have done exactly the same to me. How do you know I would reject God if He spoke to me? This is the same lame argument I've heard from other believers as regards Atheists. If God showed up and provided evidence for His existance I'd be happy to accept Him just as I accept the Sun rise each morning but I refuse to believe just because you or an old book say I should. You ask what evidence I would need, well why would God just speak to me? Of course a private meeting could be interpreted as my insanity so He must speak to all of us in a clear distinct manner so their could be no question of His reality. Sane people all over the earth believe in the Sun because we all see it and not just the Governing Body or the Pope. You said that my assertion was a "just because I say so" argument and yet you base your whole belief system on such an assertion. You only have the Bible as any tangable basis for your belief in God and nothing else. You believe that the Bible is the word of God because it says it is. You have no evidence to present so you attack me as a person and present the same old tired circular reasoning.

I can provide evidence that the Bible is bogus and not just because I say so. A study of Geology, Biology, and Archeology quickly proves the Creation, Noah's flood, and the Tower of Babel stories to all be pure fiction. This is based on real evidence like fossils, DNA, sediment deposits, known ages of civilizations, distribution of animal and plant species, the compression strength of mud brick, and common sense. I would go into more detail but I fear you would be unconvincable (as you accuse me) no matter the evidence. I've studied your Bible but have you ever taken any university level science courses? If you are so confident in your beliefs I challenge you to see the evidence for yourself. Are you a lover of truth? If so, take some classes and expose yourself to more information so that you can make an informed choice and not just believe what your ancestor's taught a thousand years ago. I have an unfair advantage because I've seen in detail both sides of this argument. Have You? If you have some evidence from the natural world which proves God exists and that the Bible is His word then please present it so we can believe together.