Posts by konceptual99

4

Strange behaviour after cut and paste

by konceptual99 in

hi simon,.

i've just created a topic re a cart witnessing experience.

i wrote the original text in another bit of software (evernote) and cut and paste it in when creating the topic.. it did not leave any line space between paragraphs (just <br> tags it would appear) but when i added in some paragraph breaks it all looks ok when the edit is saved but then on refresh text is being completely lost.. i don't have this problem other times so am wondering if it's something to do with the c'n'p into the rich text editor and then subsequent edits.. any ideas?.

konceptual99

Yup - I did some checks and doing a plain text c'n'p is much better. There's some tag in there that's ballsing it up.

4

Strange behaviour after cut and paste

by konceptual99 in

hi simon,.

i've just created a topic re a cart witnessing experience.

i wrote the original text in another bit of software (evernote) and cut and paste it in when creating the topic.. it did not leave any line space between paragraphs (just <br> tags it would appear) but when i added in some paragraph breaks it all looks ok when the edit is saved but then on refresh text is being completely lost.. i don't have this problem other times so am wondering if it's something to do with the c'n'p into the rich text editor and then subsequent edits.. any ideas?.

konceptual99

Hi Simon,

I've just created a topic re a cart witnessing experience. I wrote the original text in another bit of software (Evernote) and cut and paste it in when creating the topic.

It did not leave any line space between paragraphs (just <br> tags it would appear) but when I added in some paragraph breaks it all looks OK when the edit is saved but then on refresh text is being completely lost.

I don't have this problem other times so am wondering if it's something to do with the c'n'p into the rich text editor and then subsequent edits.

Any ideas?

532

I conclude evolution is guided

by KateWild in

your qualifications are way above mine so i'd love to hear more about the specifics of what you have researched and how that supports the existence of a deity.

k99, i am not really convinced that you're interested in my conclusions.

in nature amino acids formed to then form dna.

konceptual99

Whoever managed to organise this wonderfully constructed and contrived parody of a deist v atheist group chemistry discussion, 'hat's off to you'! My favorite bit is at the end when Kate pretends to lose her grasp on reality.
To all the players... bravo.
It is parody right?

I'd take a bow as the trigger for Kate's OP but really this was a massive tag team effort.

TBH, I don't think this is a parody. I really, really don't think it's contrived. It actually demonstrates the typical exchange between those sticking to logic and reason versus those determined to put logic and reason aside in order to maintain a completely illogical position.

32

Cancer has been with us for a long time

by Coded Logic in

a 2 million year old hominid has been discovered that had cancer in its foot - making it the oldest neoplasia found in the human lineage.

now, as to why cancer predates original sin by nearly 2 million years, i'd love to hear christian apologists try and explain.. http://sajs.co.za/osteogenic-tumour-australopithecus-sediba-earliest-hominin-evidence-neoplastic-disease/patrick-s-randolph-quinney-scott-williams-maryna-steyn-marc-r-meyer-jacqueline-s-smilg-steven-e.

konceptual99

What a coincidence. I was reading about this in New Scientist at the meeting last night then using it in my first ever reverse cart witnessing activity today.

532

I conclude evolution is guided

by KateWild in

your qualifications are way above mine so i'd love to hear more about the specifics of what you have researched and how that supports the existence of a deity.

k99, i am not really convinced that you're interested in my conclusions.

in nature amino acids formed to then form dna.

konceptual99

How about a link to the image? I guess it must be on the web somewhere?

11

"Unique" Achievements By the WTS - Special Only Through The Ability of the World to Do The Same

by konceptual99 in

jw
friends

bit of a long winding topic title but the thread on the dub in the bunker video made me think of what thing the wts does that are seen as basically impossible for anyone else to do and therefore evidence of holy spirit and god's blessing, yet those same things are done by the rest of the world day in, day out.. i have a few examples:.

- ability to buy a feck off big printing press and print thousand of magazines an hour.

only that every other big publishing organisation uses the same presses to do the same thing.. - ability to get inexperienced people to act using an acting coach as well as produce feature length films with reasonably high production value levels and special effects.

konceptual99

MEPS - good example of where the WTS used to go to a whole heap of effort to build something (in this case an phototypesetting computer - nothing to do with translation) and pride themselves on their ingenuity. To be fair, at the time there probably was not the need to do photo-typesetting in so many languages and computing was still emerging from the mainframe days but it's the sort of thing that the WTS has stopped doing.

Now they are happy to bring outside contractors in and are gradually rooting out the DIY hobbyist types who seemed to dominate various areas of Bethel and the old school RBC.

What I am confused about is the ability of HS to enable them to build a computer 35 years ago yet it was not able to help them invent Facebook in order to get the message into pretty much every home in the entire world. Having said that it's not surprising given that the internet was pretty much a dirty word until the jw,org rebrand happened 3-4 years ago. Now you'd think they'd invented the whole thing.

532

I conclude evolution is guided

by KateWild in

your qualifications are way above mine so i'd love to hear more about the specifics of what you have researched and how that supports the existence of a deity.

k99, i am not really convinced that you're interested in my conclusions.

in nature amino acids formed to then form dna.

konceptual99

Glad to see you're taking it in good humour Kate

532

I conclude evolution is guided

by KateWild in

your qualifications are way above mine so i'd love to hear more about the specifics of what you have researched and how that supports the existence of a deity.

k99, i am not really convinced that you're interested in my conclusions.

in nature amino acids formed to then form dna.

konceptual99

What's worse is the cherry picking of what is or isn't down to the supernatural with zero logic or reason.

At least people like Perry, JWs, even staunch 6 day creationists have some framework, some story that goes from A to B to C that provides the narrative as to why they believe what they believe.

Apparently you believe in evolution. Some or all of it is guided. Yet Darwin is bonkers. All that Darwinian evolutionary theory tries to describe is how life has progressed from one form to another, how the tree of life can be formed. So do you accept evolution in principle or not? Which bits are down to Sam's God - this nebulous concept in your head? How do you decide?

I honestly don't intend to disrespect or sneer at your belief, I just still don't understand what the logical framework is as to how you have arrived at where you are.

532

I conclude evolution is guided

by KateWild in

your qualifications are way above mine so i'd love to hear more about the specifics of what you have researched and how that supports the existence of a deity.

k99, i am not really convinced that you're interested in my conclusions.

in nature amino acids formed to then form dna.

konceptual99

K99,
You're right, I am being narrow minded. Noe that I am an Atheist I will be more open minded like you. Thank you for helping Cofty to convert me. The penny has dropped and my eyes are opened.

Please don't let your sarcasm get in front of your assumptions Kate. I don't think I've ever said I am an atheist.

What I have said is that when I woke up and started reading the real science behind things like the theory of evolution I found that there is research and evidence that debunks the God of the Gaps pretty much every time.

On top of this the "logic" I used to buy into about the reason for suffering, the question of universal sovereignty, the timeline and reason for going from Genesis to Revelation etc. was all just bollocks.

Therefore my faith in the power and existence of God was completely wiped out. I see nothing in the world around us that demonstrates the influence of God. I don't think I've ever stated however that I am an atheist. That's your assumption.

The most frustrating thing is that time and time again there are arguments raised by firm believers that could be presented in a secular way with a clear beginning/middle/end that could leave the question open. What happens...

...every...

...single...

...fecking...

...time...

....is that it ends up as a "god dunnit" and/or the believer flounces off in a cloud of faux annoyance their views are not being respected.

This frustration is why this thread started and so far it's proved the point over and over again.

I don't care if you believe in God. I do care that when you, as someone with formal scientific training, present an argument that might leave an open question end up reverting to the stereotype when you could be so more compelling.

532

I conclude evolution is guided

by KateWild in

your qualifications are way above mine so i'd love to hear more about the specifics of what you have researched and how that supports the existence of a deity.

k99, i am not really convinced that you're interested in my conclusions.

in nature amino acids formed to then form dna.

konceptual99

You have misunderstood my position because you haven’t told me why the coin toss simplification is a narrow minded, inexplicable reason to have the opinion that guided evolution is more probable than unguided evolution. Saying I am bonkers for believing in God is kind of prejudicial. Don’t you think it’s a bit hypocritical to call people narrow minded on this thread, if I have already apologised for calling cofty narrow minded?
Do you think all people that believe in God are bonkers? Do you know any believers that are not bonkers?
Personally I think Dawkins is bonkers.

Hi Kate,

I think you need to re-read my post. I make no comment on the coin toss as (a) I needed to digest it and (b) I was trying to distil things back down to the nub of your position. Having read your post several times along with the comments made by others all I can see is that coin toss example does not really correlate to what science (Soai's experiment and further research) demonstrates happens. If I understand the chemistry then the results of the autocatalysis is repeatable. It's not the same as randomly throwing a coin and it landing heads up in the patterns you illustrate.

Regardless, my point was that even after presenting the coin toss example you were not prepared to say "this is evidence that God is guiding this". You still maintain a position that the l/h nature of the molecules is simply "more probably" guided by God than the result of purely naturalistic processes. Not only that you then put the definition of "God" into some woolly cloud of it being "Sam's God".

Soai's research showed there is a naturalistic answer to the question of l/h bias. On that basis a reasonable position to take could be:

"This evidence shows there is no requirement for external influence by a third party (e.g. a deity) to produce the l/h bias."

This is very open minded. You could add:

"This evidence supports all the other evidence that has been gathered over the years that the natural world around us is the result of the interaction of matter and energy in harmony with the laws of physics, chemistry and biology known to humans."

This again is open in the sense it does not support or deny the existence of a deity, just accepts that there is no need for a deity to come along and make things happen.

If you want to believe in God then the above statements do not conflict with that.

What you do, however, is then add:

"Regardless of the research supporting purely naturalistic means to explain l/h bias and that this evidence is in harmony with the overwhelming majority of research out there I believe the l/h bias is, on balance, more probably guided by a deity."

Sadly this is not even your original position. From the OP your position was "I believe the l/h bias is, on balance, more probably guided by a deity" with zero explanation of where you came to that conclusion.

When pushed to explain why, we entered a spiral of obfuscation where you kept referring back to the OP.

When pushed by Cofty for you opinion on Soai's research you eventually seemed to accept it but even now you present an example in the coin toss that seems to me to be comparing apples and oranges.

You are not prepared to stand by your statements as presenting evidence for a deity. Rather you just attempt to deflect questioning by essentially saying "I can't explain what a deity is, at what level it operates, what it's purposes might be. It's just something in my head that I think must be there."

It's not about proving or disproving God. It's not about dis-respecting beliefs. Nowhere have I said anything about this and the existence of God. All it is about is the intellectual process one goes through to come to conclusions about life and our place in it. Right now, in spite of the science demonstrating a solution to the question, your only conclusion is "God dunnit" with no logical reason for that conclusion.

I am not saying your belief in a God is bonkers. I am saying that your position and conclusion is bonkers as there is zero logic to it. You could maintain an open mind on the reason for l/h bias without compromising your belief in a deity. This would maintain some credibility in your reasoning ability.

The only way I can try and understand why you maintain the position is that somewhere along the line you've been convinced that the l/h bias is an open and shut case for the involvement of a deity without considering evidence like Soai's research and now cannot accept that this subject is actually yet another solved puzzle (c.f. flagellum) even though there is a middle ground position that means you make no conclusion other than a simple acceptance of the science.

To that end it is narrow-minded and you are doing yourself an intellectual injustice.