Putting the JW Stand on Evolution in Perspective

[Hockeycowboy]

Last I looked, physicists still haven't worked out the mechanism(s) behind gravity. What conclusions should we draw from that?

Gravity, just like evolution, has its limits, too. Go 500,000 miles into space, and see what effect Earth's gravity has on you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Gravity, just like evolution, has its limits, too. Go 500,000 miles into space, and see what effect Earth's gravity has on you.

Of course evolution has limits. That is why an animal such as a pegasus would refute the theory of evolution. But the life that we see today is explained perfectly by the theory.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Of course evolution has limits. That is why an animal such as a pegasus would refute the theory of evolution. But the life that we see today is explained perfectly by the theory.

No, it isn't, Certainly not the Cambrian Explosion!

From the stalk-eyed fly, to the platypus, to the giant sequoia....from bearing young oviparously to viviparously, to ovoviviparously....from symbiosis between unrelated organisms, to their gps-location instincts...

Too much diversity exists, for evolution to reasonably explain and account for. No undirected, mindless force could greatly mutate these organisms, and still maintain the balance in nature that exists.

It's fantasy!

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, it isn't, Certainly not the Cambrian Explosion!

From the stalk-eyed fly, to the platypus, to the giant sequoia....from bearing young oviparously to viviparously, to ovoviviparously....from symbiosis between unrelated organisms, to their gps-location instincts...

Too much diversity exists, for evolution to reasonably explain and account for. No undirected, mindless force could greatly mutate these organisms, and still maintain the balance in nature that exists.

It's fantasy!

What about the Cambrian explosion? Only those that have a very poor understanding of evolution seem to have any problem with it at all.

And why do you think that too much diversity exists? Do you have any evidence for either of your claims? I have seen creationists try to make arguments in the past but they always based their arguments on strawman versions of the theory of evolution. Once the strawman is identified the argument is refuted. Do you think that you can do any better?

 

[Deeje]

Real medicine that just happens to agree with your religious superstitions?

What religious superstitions are related to natural medicines? They come from plants.....you know, those things that grow in the ground....?

Have you been keeping up with the revelations about the medicinal value of cannabis by any chance? The therapeutic value is only beginning to be appreciated. Its been banned for 70 years because big pharma made it out to be the worst drug in existence.....but lo and behold...it was all a lie to keep it away from being discovered as one of the best medicines available to humankind....one that would have put all their expensive synthetic drugs off the market. One that had been used for thousands of years in just about every culture.
I don't think you have any idea how corrupt these commercial systems are.

Your Gods actions obviously need excusing otherwise you wouldn't have done it.

Explaining is not excusing....do you need me to tell you the difference?

About rotting in a home or quite mobile?

I was being facetious about wishing an atheist "merry Christmas". Must I explain everything? I know you said that you were simple, but how simple are you?

It's getting kinda silly that I have to keep typing the same thing over and over. Quick tip, I'm a simple bloke, I say what I mean. No need to add to or interpret. On occasion there may be sarcasm but it will be obvious.

Now that's funny, seeing as how you do exactly the same to me.....pot meet kettle.

That's not true. Voting in Australia. Conscription in Australia and the U.S. Knocking on doors in Russia. I'm sure there's other examples of laws being broken.

We have an escape clause.....Acts of the Apostles 5:27-29.... Our obedience to man's law is relative. We obey God first. He tells us not to meddle in politics....not to harm our fellow men, even our enemies.....to take his message to the people wherever we live.....and anything else that humans tell us to do (or not to do) that runs contrary to God's laws. Its the only time you will find us in prison, just the same as the apostles in Jesus' day.

Not what I was talking about, it's his complete absence.

"His complete absence"? Speak for yourself. He is certainly not absent from the lives of his worshippers. Evidence of his care for creation is everywhere....it is humans who fail to reflect his moral qualities and ruin his handiwork. God actively participates in my life and always has....not by miracles but by always offering me good advice.

As one line of evidence...have you never noticed that everything God created is recycled? God never had a trash problem because everything he made was designed to break down and feed other organisms. Not a drop of water has ever left the earth's atmosphere....it is all recycled by various forms of precipitation....just another one of those amazing coincidences. Yet look what man is doing.....trash everywhere. Did you know that if hemp had been used to produce plastic and fuel, it would have been 100% bio-degradable and non-polluting? Why was hemp banned along with cannabis? Greed. Oil companies wanted to use their waste products to make more money. Now we are all paying for it.

Like stoning homosexuals and animal sacrifice?

Who said anything about stoning homosexuals and animal sacrifices? I was talking about moral issues like fidelity and respect for marriage. I was talking about honesty in business and between friends. Respect for fellow humans, and animals as sharers of this Earth. I was talking about all the causes for war and the use of weapons of mass destruction.....If everyone followed the teachings of Jesus Christ, none of those things would be destroying people's lives. That is a fact.

You seem to want to make things up about me to suit your agenda and ignore what I actually type.

Perhaps its your communication skills....? I respond to what you actually type, but I don't see you doing the same.

Not sure if accident is the right word but I can't think of a better one. Is there a word for "it happened"?

Very scientific.......

You are free to be as miserable as you wish but I won't be able to stop thinking it can't be good and hoping for something better for you.

I am not miserable.....was there something that gave you that impression? Hopelessness would make me miserable....I have hope for the future of planet Earth that does not rely on stupid humans.....so nothing makes me miserable. I see a light at the end of the tunnel...and its not a train.

 

[John53]

What religious superstitions are related to natural medicines? They come from plants.....you know, those things that grow in the ground....?

Once again you haven't bothered to read what I typed.

Have you been keeping up with the revelations about the medicinal value of cannabis by any chance? The therapeutic value is only beginning to be appreciated. Its been banned for 70 years because big pharma made it out to be the worst drug in existence.....but lo and behold...it was all a lie to keep it away from being discovered as one of the best medicines available to humankind....one that would have put all their expensive synthetic drugs off the market. One that had been used for thousands of years in just about every culture.
I don't think you have any idea how corrupt these commercial systems are.

I don't really care one or the other. If the government wants to go into surplus they will legalise it.

Explaining is not excusing....do you need me to tell you the difference?

Yep which is why I said what I did....

I was being facetious about wishing an atheist "merry Christmas". Must I explain everything? I know you said that you were simple, but how simple are you?

Good one, lol.... the Mrs wants to know what I'm laughing about.

Anyway I guess I won't be getting an answer to my question.

Now that's funny, seeing as how you do exactly the same to me.....pot meet kettle.

Can't even remember what this about and can't be bothered looking. (I'm missing Cops).

We have an escape clause.....Acts of the Apostles 5:27-29.... Our obedience to man's law is relative. We obey God first. He tells us not to meddle in politics....not to harm our fellow men, even our enemies.....to take his message to the people wherever we live.....and anything else that humans tell us to do (or not to do) that runs contrary to God's laws. Its the only time you will find us in prison, just the same as the apostles in Jesus' day.

By relative you mean hypocrisy?

"His complete absence"? Speak for yourself. He is certainly not absent from the lives of his worshippers. Evidence of his care for creation is everywhere....it is humans who fail to reflect his moral qualities and ruin his handiwork. God actively participates in my life and always has....not by miracles but by always offering me good advice.

As one line of evidence...have you never noticed that everything God created is recycled? God never had a trash problem because everything he made was designed to break down and feed other organisms. Not a drop of water has ever left the earth's atmosphere....it is all recycled by various forms of precipitation....just another one of those amazing coincidences. Yet look what man is doing.....trash everywhere. Did you know that if hemp had been used to produce plastic and fuel, it would have been 100% bio-degradable and non-polluting? Why was hemp banned along with cannabis? Greed. Oil companies wanted to use their waste products to make more money. Now we are all paying for it.

What does the vacuum of space recycle to?

Who said anything about stoning homosexuals and animal sacrifices? I was talking about moral issues like fidelity and respect for marriage. I was talking about honesty in business and between friends. Respect for fellow humans, and animals as sharers of this Earth. I was talking about all the causes for war and the use of weapons of mass destruction.....If everyone followed the teachings of Jesus Christ, none of those things would be destroying people's lives. That is a fact.

Something about obeying laws I think. I'm missing cops....

Perhaps its your communication skills....? I respond to what you actually type, but I don't see you doing the same.

No it's you adding stuff to my words.

Very scientific.......

I'm not a scientist so there won't be anything scientific from me.

I am not miserable.....was there something that gave you that impression? Hopelessness would make me miserable....I have hope for the future of planet Earth that does not rely on stupid humans.....so nothing makes me miserable. I see a light at the end of the tunnel...and its not a train.

Yep, your posts. (Although the simple joke was funny so maybe only 98% miserable)

 

[ImmortalFlame]

No, it isn't, Certainly not the Cambrian Explosion!

The Cambrian explosion was a rapid speciation event, so that's kind of like saying "deforestation doesn't explain the rapid increase in forest land being cleared for commercial purposes".

 

[ecco]

Yeah, let's get the 'right perspective':
Scientists Seek to Update Evolution | Quanta Magazine

Scientists themselves can't even agree on the mechanisms behind macro evolution. So how should we toe the line? It might be the wrong line!

This article is already 2 years old. How's this New Synthesis coming?

Did you read the article? I doubt it. If you had read it you would not have asserted: Scientists themselves can't even agree on the mechanisms behind macro evolution.

If you had taken the time to read it, you would have seen this part:

The researchers don’t argue that the Modern Synthesis is wrong — just that it doesn’t capture the full richness of evolution.​

Your post is so typical of Creo/Fundie "arguments".

You see a headline; you think it means one thing; you post a link to the article; you hope no one actually reads the article. So lame.

More probably, you didn't even come across the article on your own. Probably someone in the Fundie/Creo network found it and posted it with:

HERE IS ANOTHER PROOF THE EVOLUTION IS WRONG - SCIENTISTS CAN'T AGREE ON BASIC ****. REPOST IT NOW TO SHOW THOSE EVILUTIONISTS HOW STUPID THEY ARE TO BELIEVE SUCH UNGODLY NONSENSE.
​

Don't you ever get tired of embarrassing yourself?

 

[tas8831]

That's one of the differences between believers and skeptics. You read an article that has a few words conforming to your ingrained beliefs and you parrot it. A skeptic looks at when was written and who did the writing. A skeptic sees a conflict of interest when one so clearly exists.

And isn't it odd that she needs actual scientific research 'dumbed-down' and the scientific 'jargon' removed so she can sort of understand it (and then she uses the dumbed-down verbiage to claim that the science is too 'speculative' and devoid of scientific terminiology!), yet seems to totally accept the claims in a video,that she also does not seem to understand, without question?

If you (JW) have done your own research, then just post it. However, I think your "research" does not extend beyond what you read in the Bible.[/quoted]Or beyond videos put out by like-minded propagandists.

My 'leaders'? What "leaders"?

She is projecting. The religious always 'follow their leaders.'

If you are implying that I think modern medicine is better than the medicine practiced 2000 years ago or 3500 years ago, then, yes, I do. Although I don't see why you would use the term "party line".

It is a pejorative, so of course the zealot will use such language.

You apparently have no problems with the scientific advances that led to electricity and computers and cars. Why is that? Oh - they don't conflict with what you read in you thousands year old book.

Now, now Deeje. There is no reason to resort to the word 'proof' is there. As you've been told many, many times, skeptics don't look for proof, skeptics look at evidence.

Did you ever wonder where your faith without evidence came from? Your beliefs came from people who also had faith without evidence who believed the preachings and writings of a few people 150 years ago. Writings that foretold of the end of times. Wrongly and repeatedly. Yet blind faith demands you ignore, ignore, ignore.

Great points.

 

[tas8831]

Perhaps if you watched the video I linked, which you referred to as propaganda,, it would provide an answer to your question. I don't understand why you ask questions, and then refuse to look at the answers. That's doesn't make sense to me. Does it make sense to you?

Does it make sense that when I ask a person to explain something in their own words, they link to propaganda videos filled with talking heads and no references to check (i.e., propaganda)?

Tells me that they only believe what comes form their own sources, and cannot tell on their own whether what they see is correct or not.

That is why.

 

[oldbadger]

I just stated a fact. And, there is a magazine published by the Jehovah's Witnesses that gives a list of some brave children who died peasing Jehovah by not having blood. View attachment 25862

Please could you tell us how many children died over a particular period, as described in the JW mag. Then I'll look up to discover how many died because they got blood transfusions, although you need to understand that my search will be very very hard compared to yours because Health Authorities don't half cover their tracks! The JWs are very open by comparison.

 

[ecco]

If you stray outside of their very strict guidelines, they will strip you of your right to "practice medicine"

Can you provide the details of even just one doctor who lost his right to "practice medicine" because he strayed "outside of their very strict guidelines".

Why do you think people are leaving orthodox medicine in droves.....preferring to go to natural medical practitioners and doctors who have chosen to practice functional medicine?

That sounds like "Scientists are abandoning evolution by the droves" argument. Neither are true.

On the other hand there is a movement, especially by fundies, to not get vaccinated. These movements have caused increases in instances of diseases.

I have had way more success using natural therapies than I ever had using prescription drugs.

Perhaps medical guidelines should be based on Deeje's anecdotal evidence.

Do you know about big pharma's patents and how they get their drugs passed by the FDA? They have ability to then charge like wounded bulls for these drugs that invariably have awful side effects? If the Hippocratic Oath says to first of all "do no harm" then all drug companies have forced doctors to break that oath.

Drug research costs a lot of money. Drug companies, in a capitalist society, have a right, actually a legal obligation, to earn profits. On the other hand, I do see where US laws allow people around to world to pay less for drugs than we pay. Consider it our gift.

How many people in the US have to sell their homes if illness forces them to give up work, losing their insurance coverage?

It is not the medical profession that causes this. It is the insurance profession along with the political establishment. Strangely enough, it is the lower middle-class Republican who fights against "socialized medicine".

I saw on a documentary one night, an older couple who both ended up with different cancers. They had no way to pay for their treatment because of employment loss, so they sold their house to pay for their treatments and moved in with their children. It was hardly an ideal situation for any of them....but what kind of greed drives such a drastic option for people who are sick and dying? Its not like the big pharmaceutical companies can't afford to lose a bit of profit for the sake of humanity.

See above.

But none of these expensive treatments have any guarantees. What a waste of human life and help that could have been passed onto the next generation. We all want to leave something for our children after a lifetime of paying off a mortgage. But these options leave nothing for anyone except lining the pockets of those who are already filthy rich off other people's misery.

Darn Right!! We should be able to euthanize these worthless old folks while they still have some money left. Oh, wait. It's the religious folks who are against euthanasia.

 

[oldbadger]

In one of the videos I linked children just months old have had surgery without blood transfusion,
I know that.

In this situation, although there is clearly demonstrated evidence, it makes absolutely no impression on minds cemented in their world-view.

Are you well?
Please go back and find any single post of mine which has attacked anything to do with the Ws.
Your mind is so cemented that you cannot tell which side people are discussing from. It's amazing.....

 

[oldbadger]

I'm sorry to sound as though I am some expert, as I am not, but I was speaking from what I believed to be the case.

How though can a Pathologists determine that a person died from a lack of blood transfusion? Imo, they can only determine that the person died from excess bleeding, but that does not mean the person died from a lack of blood transfusion.

Why don'#t you ask a Pathologist? I was a commercial detective and security trainer!

For example, say a person is stabbed multiple times and rushed to the hospital, when, or if they die, due to delay in administering life saving methods - which can be a number of things, including procedures without blood transfusions, what was the cause of death?
It can be a number of things, but how can it be lack of blood transfusions.

What exactly do you do for a living?

 

[tas8831]

I should have linked you these, but forgot.

Failure of red blood cell transfusion to increase oxygen transport or mixed venous PO2 in injured patients.
....
Following transfusion of one unit of packed RBC which increased mean hemoglobin from 9.2 +/- 0.3 gm/dl to 10.1 +/- 0.3 gm/dl (p less than 0.01), there were no changes in oxygen delivery (490 +/- 80 ml/min/m2), oxygen consumption (210 +/- 30 ml/min/m2), or mixed venous PO/ (37 +/- 2 Torr). Cardiac index (4.1 +/- 0.71 L/min) decreased by 0.4 L/min/m2 (p less than 0.05). Standard P50 decreased by 4.2 +/- 2.4 Torr following transfusion of two units of RBC (p less than 0.05). Red blood cell transfusion thus failed to increase oxygen consumption in these patients, despite an increase in oxygen content. Thus, RBC transfusion may not improve tissue oxygenation.

Seems serious.

EXPLAIN that all so Deeje can understand it.

And so I can tell if YOU understand it.

Did you read my links indicating that non-blood volume expanders do not increase oxygen?

Also, when you went to that link (surely, you did not just copy-paste it, right?), did you see the links to papers that cited that paper on the right side of the page?

I did. I saw this one (emphases mine):

Impact of red blood cell transfusion on global and regional measures of oxygenation.
Abstract
Anemia is common in critically ill patients. Although the goal of transfusion of red blood cells is to increase oxygen-carrying capacity, there are contradictory results about whether red blood cell transfusion to treat moderate anemia (e.g., hemoglobin 7-10 g/dL) improves tissue oxygenation or changes outcomes. Whereas increasing levels of anemia eventually lead to a level of critical oxygen delivery, increased cardiac output and oxygen extraction are homeostatic mechanisms the body uses to prevent a state of dysoxia in the setting of diminished oxygen delivery due to anemia. In order for cardiac output to increase in the face of anemia, normovolemia must be maintained. Transfusion of red blood cells increases blood viscosity, which may actually decrease cardiac output (barring a state of hypovolemia prior to transfusion). Studies have generally shown that transfusion of red blood cells fails to increase oxygen uptake unless oxygen uptake/oxygen delivery dependency exists (e.g., severe anemia or strenuous exercise). Recently, near-infrared spectroscopy, which approximates the hemoglobin saturation of venous blood, has been used to investigate whether transfusion of red blood cells increases tissue oxygenation in regional tissue beds (e.g., brain, peripheral skeletal muscle). These studies have generally shown increases in near-infrared spectroscopy derived measurements of tissue oxygenation following transfusion. Studies evaluating the effect of transfusion on the microcirculation have shown that transfusion increases the functional capillary density. This article will review fundamental aspects of oxygen delivery and extraction, and the effects of red blood cell transfusion on tissue oxygenation as well as the microcirculation.​

That one is only 30 years more recent than the one you linked.

Banked Blood Loses Ability To Deliver Oxygen To Tissues Almost Immediately
Summary:
Almost immediately after it is donated, human blood begins to lose a key gas that opens up blood vessels to facilitate the transfer of oxygen from red blood cells to oxygen-starved tissues. Thus, millions of patients are apparently receiving transfusions with blood that is impaired in its ability to deliver oxygen.

Wow, also sounds serious.
But you didn't read beyond that headline, did you?
The VERY FIRST SENTENCE past the summary you pasted:

"They also found that adding this gas back to stored blood before transfusion appears to restore red blood cells' ability to transfer oxygen to tissues."


So many fails... So little time expended exposing them...

Got any more? If you do, make sure that you read and understand them to make sure they are relevant before posting or I will rebut them and expose your gullibility yet again.

 

[nPeace]

Does it make sense that when I ask a person to explain something in their own words, they link to propaganda videos filled with talking heads and no references to check (i.e., propaganda)?

Tells me that they only believe what comes form their own sources, and cannot tell on their own whether what they see is correct or not.

That is why.

The question you ask for me to put in my own words, was not related to the topic in the video.
Your question was this: What is the JW position on tissue/organ transplants?
Imagine. You asked what JWs believe about something, and don't want to look at their official website.
You have been using the word silly so often, but I wonder if you really should be using it.
Where do you suppose the answers should come from?
If what JWs on these forums believe, is the same as on the website, what is the difference? Propaganda from one place, is better than another?

 

[oldbadger]

​

Randomly selected? Out of all the sources available, you "randomly selected" one of the phoniest tabloids around. What are the odds.
Google Search "englands daily mail"

Is Daily Mail a reliable news source?
One thing it's not: the Daily Mail. ... Consensus has determined that the Daily Mail(including its online version, dailymail.co.uk) is generally unreliable, and its use as a reference is to be generally prohibited, especially when other more reliable sourcesexist.Feb 9, 2017​

Oh Ecco............ you think I chose that report? Deliberately?
You think I have some driven agenda for the JWs?
Do you know what a Deist is?

Now why don't you have a look round yourself?
The very fact that you have called the English Daily Maily 'phoney' is wonderful, quite wonderful. I buy it once a month to read at the cafe while my wife has her hair groomed etc....... and many of the Mail's reports are repeated in the cafe's chosen papers newspapers.

Look...... I'll help you. I likre helping people. I will bother to review and select only articles on the same subject by lone other National English Paper, wjhich YOU are going to name before I even look. Now let's see how 'random' you are, mate!

 

[tas8831]

Why don'#t you ask a Pathologist? I was a commercial detective and security trainer!

Good point - I am not a pathologist, either, but I went to school with someone who went on to become one, and she was in her residency while I was finishing up my doctorate. She used to regale me with all manner of little tidbits that she had learned about indications for certain pathologies. None of which I remember, the point being, pathologists have ways of determining things that layfolk cannot fathom.

What exactly do you do for a living?

I am always curious about that when I see people pontificate about subjects that it becomes clear they know little about.

 

[tas8831]

The question you ask for me to put in my own words, was not related to the topic in the video.

It is my standard question - does it not make sense?

Let's see your explanation for the content of the talking head video.

Your question was this: What is the JW position on tissue/organ transplants?
Imagine. You asked what JWs believe about something, and don't want to look at their official website.

Imagine, there is a JW right here pontificating about things and apparently does not know his own views well enough to explain them.

Where do you suppose the answers should come from?

The one spouting the assertions.

If what JWs on these forums believe, is the same as on the website, what is the difference? Propaganda from one place, is better than another?

So you admit it is propaganda, that is a start.

 

[nPeace]

Seems serious.

EXPLAIN that all so Deeje can understand it.

And so I can tell if YOU understand it.

Did you read my links indicating that non-blood volume expanders do not increase oxygen?

Also, when you went to that link (surely, you did not just copy-paste it, right?), did you see the links to papers that cited that paper on the right side of the page?

I did. I saw this one (emphases mine):

Impact of red blood cell transfusion on global and regional measures of oxygenation.
Abstract
Anemia is common in critically ill patients. Although the goal of transfusion of red blood cells is to increase oxygen-carrying capacity, there are contradictory results about whether red blood cell transfusion to treat moderate anemia (e.g., hemoglobin 7-10 g/dL) improves tissue oxygenation or changes outcomes. Whereas increasing levels of anemia eventually lead to a level of critical oxygen delivery, increased cardiac output and oxygen extraction are homeostatic mechanisms the body uses to prevent a state of dysoxia in the setting of diminished oxygen delivery due to anemia. In order for cardiac output to increase in the face of anemia, normovolemia must be maintained. Transfusion of red blood cells increases blood viscosity, which may actually decrease cardiac output (barring a state of hypovolemia prior to transfusion). Studies have generally shown that transfusion of red blood cells fails to increase oxygen uptake unless oxygen uptake/oxygen delivery dependency exists (e.g., severe anemia or strenuous exercise). Recently, near-infrared spectroscopy, which approximates the hemoglobin saturation of venous blood, has been used to investigate whether transfusion of red blood cells increases tissue oxygenation in regional tissue beds (e.g., brain, peripheral skeletal muscle). These studies have generally shown increases in near-infrared spectroscopy derived measurements of tissue oxygenation following transfusion. Studies evaluating the effect of transfusion on the microcirculation have shown that transfusion increases the functional capillary density. This article will review fundamental aspects of oxygen delivery and extraction, and the effects of red blood cell transfusion on tissue oxygenation as well as the microcirculation.​

That one is only 30 years more recent than the one you linked.


Wow, also sounds serious.
But you didn't read beyond that headline, did you?
The VERY FIRST SENTENCE past the summary you pasted:

"They also found that adding this gas back to stored blood before transfusion appears to restore red blood cells' ability to transfer oxygen to tissues."


So many fails... So little time expended exposing them...

Got any more? If you do, make sure that you read and understand them to make sure they are relevant before posting or I will rebut them and expose your gullibility yet again.

I have told you before that you keep assuming what people have or have not done. Your argument was this.
Hypovolemic shock can only be treated with an increase in blood volume. Non-blood fluids cannot be used to replace large amounts of lost blood for what I hope are obvious reasons (saline, for example, does not carry oxygen so well). People do die from refusing blood transfusions.

I provided you with links showing 1) Hypovolemic shock can be treated without an increase in blood volume, and 2) RBCs does not improve oxygen carrying capabilities.
Do you disagree?