• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Putting the JW Stand on Evolution in Perspective

ecco

Veteran Member
Yeah. You really do have reading comprehension problems:
I never said, "everything written by the Mail was distortion and lies".
I didn't pick the Guardian at all. I didn't pick any paper.
Any comments I made about JW or anyone else's beliefs regarding blood transfusions were fact-based.
If you disagree with any of the above, show where it's wrong.


Which part of 'Blood Transfusions are not always needed, and can be dangerous or deadly' are you having difficulty in understanding? I tried to show this to you but you moaned about the source. You showed that another paper was good. I used that as a source. Now you want to moan about newspapers, probably directing away from the above simple true fact.

I don't know who introduced the '...and they kill their babies' thing to a thread about evolution, nor do I care. These self-righteous buffoons don't write in to howl and scream about parents who put their kids in to serious risk of injury or death by driving like criminals., or smoking near them, or going top dangerous sports with them or whatever........ such folks want to moan about the JWs and the blood 'thing'. !!!!

How about you present us with a proven list (from a true newspaper, please) of JW children and JW babies that have died for want of a blood transfusion, could you?

Good Luck with that.....
:facepalm:
That's a very nice long p[ost where you failed to address...

I never said, "everything written by the Mail was distortion and lies".
I didn't pick the Guardian at all. I didn't pick any paper.
Any comments I made about JW or anyone else's beliefs regarding blood transfusions were fact-based.

If you disagree with any of the above, show where it's wrong.
 

ecco

Veteran Member
You show an ignorance of the reasons marijuana was prohibited. But, maybe I'm wrong. Perhaps you can show a well researched, unbiased article that points to marijuana being banned because of Big Pharma.

This article...
Why Is Pot Illegal in Australia?
...does not support your argument.

Big Pharma had nothing to do with it being banned in the US. Instead, it was racism and Big Timber in association with holy rollers.

I just read through that article and it doesn't disprove it either.

What a silly thing to say. The article also does not disprove that the marijuana ban was initiated by bigfoot.

You asserted that the marijuana ban was because of Big Pharma. You have shown no evidence to support that erroneous, nonsensical claim.


So do you really know what was behind the idea to ban a harmless plant along with opium and coca?
Yes I do. As I stated in my previous post:
Big Pharma had nothing to do with it being banned in the US. Instead, it was racism and Big Timber in association with holy rollers.
Since you were too lazy to follow up, I'll add a little more. Look up William Randolph Hearst. Mega newspaper publisher. Owner of vast timber holdings that supplied him and many other newspapers with paper. He knew that cheap hemp could also be used to make paper. He was also a Nationalist racist who hated Mexicans.

Once he started his campaign, holy rollers jumped on the bandwagon. Just as they did with alcohol prohibition.



Opioids continue to take more lives as prescription medicine, than all illicit drugs combined and cocaine continues to be used routinely even by those in positions of authority. How anyone could group these three together is beyond me...yet they continue to this day to include cannabis (THC) as schedule one drug.....defined as....
  • The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse.
  • The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical treatment use in the U.S.
  • It has a lack of accepted safety for use under medical supervision.
There is no way that cannabis qualifies under any of those descriptions. It is non-addictive....medicinally beneficial...


Current Classification in the USA is...
Schedule I

Schedule I drugs, substances, or chemicals are defined as drugs with no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse. Some examples of Schedule I drugs are:

heroin, lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD), marijuana (cannabis), 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (ecstasy), methaqualone, and peyote​

Schedule II

Schedule II drugs, substances, or chemicals are defined as drugs with a high potential for abuse, with use potentially leading to severe psychological or physical dependence. These drugs are also considered dangerous. Some examples of Schedule II drugs are:

Combination products with less than 15 milligrams of hydrocodone per dosage unit (Vicodin), cocaine, methamphetamine, methadone, hydromorphone (Dilaudid), meperidine (Demerol), oxycodone (OxyContin), fentanyl, Dexedrine, Adderall, and Ritalin​


I think some of your naivete stems from your religion. You have been taught to look at things from a simplistic viewpoint. The reason that marijuana was classified with heroin was to convince the public that it was very bad and dangerous. This worked. It is only in the past few years that the majority of Americans have seen through the right-wing propaganda.

and perfectly safe for self-administration the same way alcohol is, (which is perfectly legal). Like all things, it can be abused.

I've been in favor of legalizing pot all my adult life. So, on the issue of legalization, we agree.

However, your rants about Big Pharma being the reason marijuana was banned are completely wrong.
 

ecco

Veteran Member
Rubbish. What do you have to back that up?

See My post # 442.


I am not going to waste even one minute watching a video produced by these folks...

The Corbett Report - Media Bias/Fact Check


CONSPIRACY-PSEUDOSCIENCE

Factual Reporting: LOW

Notes: The Corbett Reports is a right wing biased conspiracy site. Some featured topics are the New World Order, 9-11 conspiracies and of course false flag operations. There are many more. (2/4/2017)

Source: The Corbett Report

It is interesting to see that JW and its followers are so in tune with Right-Wing Conspiracy Nutcakes. Interesting, but not surprising.
 

ecco

Veteran Member
Let's go back to the original post on this subject:
Gravity, just like evolution, has its limits, too. Go 500,000 miles into space, and see what effect Earth's gravity has on you.

So, Hockeycowboy, now that you've been educated in 6th-grade Newtonian physics (Grades 6, 7 and 8 | Science | Middle School | Physics - Newton's Three Laws of Motion), you must realize that gravity does have an effect at distances of 500,000 miles.

If you apply that knowledge to the analogy you gave, you have just proven to yourself that evolution is real.

Congratulations.
 

savagewind

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Die for lack of treatment with blood products to learn to wait for good things?
I do not understand. The Bible was not written with any idea about blood transfusions. I said the original directive (in the Bible*) was written to teach a person against greed and for learning patience.


*OMG! No right at all to do that. lol
 

savagewind

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Not a priest am I. And, God help me! I didn't even finish college. Oh! AND I'm a woman. Three strikes and I am out? No thinking for me!
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
With a little help from the moon's gravity.

The moon's gravity doesn't have a significant effect on the orbit of the moon. The mass of the moon shifts the barycenter of the earth-moon system, but that isn't a gravitational effect.
 

tas8831

Well-Known Member
Pretend that I know nothing of evolution but have extensive knowledge of biology. Please explain to me the things you just asserted. With supporting evidence.

Thanks.
Grief! They evidence is there for all to study...

"The introduction of a variety of organisms in the early Cambrian, including such complex forms of the arthropods as the trilobites, is surprising . . Why should such complex organic forms be in rocks about 600 million years old, and yet be totally absent from rocks in the previous 2 billion years? . . If there has been evolution of life, the absence of the requisite fossils in the rocks older than the Cambrian is puzzling."

-- Marshall Kay and Edwin Colbert, "Stratigraphy and Life History," p. 102.

Etc., etc.
Cool - a quote from a book published in 1965. With 2 instances of ellipses. Did you read the book? If so, can you tell me what you ellipsed out? It costs $165 on Amazon - wow, you must really be into decades-old geology books to shell out that much cash.

And the weirdest thing of all?

When I googled that quote, a SINGLE return showed up -

Haryn Yoyo, the wacky dishonest creationist's website.

Imagine that? A SINGLE return, and I'll be darned if that quote did not match yours ENTIRELY - ellipses and all! What a coincidence.

But then, I truncated the quote, and just googled the up to 'surprising'... and wow - 90 returns. EVERY SINGLE ONE to a creationist website, creationist comment on a forum or website,. etc.

What an amazing coincidence!


So, yeah, cool that you can copy-paste creationist quotes, but I guess you cannot actually address my simple request.

YOU WROTE:

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.


I asked you to imagine that I understand biology but know nothing of evolution and to EXPLAIN what you wrote to me.

You reply with some plagiarized quote from 50 years ago that does not - at all - address anything you had written.

A. Are you just one of those creationists that copy-pastes all of your arguments from creationist websites?

B. Or are you the rare exception that actually has a relevant background and can deal with the evidence?

I'm thinking A at this point.
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
The medical profession today is little more than a money-making racket

Then I trust you will avoid it and hold onto your money.

In the big scheme of things, they fix very little

You have no idea what you are talking about. I spent decades in the profession and saw thousands of people whose lives were improved by modern medicine. When I started, fatal heart attacks at age 60 or earlier, and massively swollen ankles from congestive heart failure were commonplace, but by the time of my retirement, rare. When I started practicing medicine, diabetic peripheral neuropathy (pain and/or numbness in the limbs and extremities), blindness, and kidney failure were far more common.

Today, I am surrounded by people that have new hips, knees, and intraocular lenses, and who are living full and active lives into their 80's and 90's much more commonly

Your head has been filled with false information, and you dutifully and uncritically serve as a willing vector for its further dissemination. That's irresponsible, even more so that your attacks on evolutionary science, about which you are also misinfomed and disseminating misinformation. But the latter can't hurt anybody, whereas your irresponsible assault on medical science could if you are seen as credible by any reader.

Cannabis, e.g. has been seen to cure

Yeah, I know. I've been an advocate for years. Cannabis is useful in a large variety of medical conditions as well as for palliation in end-of-life-care

That doesn't fit your conception of the evil, greedy physician trying to keep his patients barely alive to take more of their money before they die, does it?

Real medicine is about getting to the cause of the problem, not simply treating the symptoms.

This comment demonstrates how unqualified you are to comment about medicine.

Oh please.....who doesn't know what a symptom is?

You, it seems. You commented that medications only treat symptoms. I told you that you were wrong, and commented that you must not know what a symptom is. You're still wrong.

What are the secular humanists doing about any of it apart from whining?

I have no interest in defending a compassion, reason and evidence based ideology to a faith based thinker who gets her morals from a book, and her education from the Watchtower..

What are you and your denomination doing for the world besides despising and maligning it?

Well, bully for you. Countless billions do not live in your bubble. If you pretend that they are not there will those people go away?.....is that how secular humanism works?

Who's pretending that unhappy and unfortunate people don't exist? Not I. I'm telling you that it is possible to lead a satisfying life - that my life has been good, as are the lives of untold millions if not billions of people - more than ever in the history of humanity, thanks to the advances brought to us by academia and rational skepticism. You seem to resent that.

It is you pretending that there are no happy people, or that those who claim to be must be selfish and living in a bubble. Sorry, but I have a realistic connection to my world, one derived from experiencing and contemplating it. Your understanding of the world comes from your church, an understanding that is unrecognizable to me. It's hard to believe that we are living in the same world.

My worldview is extremely optimistic compared to yours IMO.

I've never read anybody more pessimistic, nihilistic, or misanthriopic than you. How can you be happy when all you can see is failure and corruption? All you have to offset that is unjustified hope for happiness some day in an imagined paradisiacal afterlife. But not today. Today, you are just biding your time, awaiting the end of life in the hope of something better.

if only optimism could fix the problems

If only berating mankind, science, medicine, and the world were of any use.
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
So you asked a pointless question that only tells us how little that you know. Not a smart debating technique.
Now you surely are smarter than that......... or are you?

1. This is a DISCUSSION, not a debate. Nope.... not smart. :facepalm:

2. Insulting people because they are not afraid to ask is not smart :facepalm:

:shrug:

See ya later.......
 

tas8831

Well-Known Member
You, it seems. You commented that medications only treat symptoms. I told you that you were wrong, and commented that you must not know what a symptom is. You're still wrong.
But come on - who DOESN'T know what a symptom is?

I mean, the only people that wouldn't know are people that have ZERO knowledge of health or medicine or even general biology (I teach about signs and symptoms in my freshman anatomy and physiology class).
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
It is not easy to stop a space probe as it passes a planet; one needs fuel to decelerate the vehicle as well as to accelerate it. Voyager 2 wasn't able to stop as it passed Uranus or Neptune, and New Horizons wasn't able to stop as it passed Pluto.

And how do you think that a million years of technology, advancing at our present rates, could make a difference?
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Now you surely are smarter than that......... or are you?

1. This is a DISCUSSION, not a debate. Nope.... not smart. :facepalm:

2. Insulting people because they are not afraid to ask is not smart :facepalm:

:shrug:

See ya later.......
Creationists are banned from using facepalms since they have such ridiculous beliefs. If you want to know something ask questions politely and properly. Asking "gotcha questions" when you are obviously wrong means that you should be faceplaming yourself.

Now please, if anyone has been "not smart" that is you. Why not try to ask proper questions. As you said this is a discussion. There are no more real debates between those that accept reality and creationists, there is only corrections of errant beliefs.

So do you think you could ask proper questions? Put on your big boy pants and try again.
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
I understand and I obeyed it just like that for twenty years though I didn't require a blood transfusion. Once, I had a test and requested it be done without the blood thing and they complied. But, I have to disagree that the no blood directive had to be about death and dying. And, the directive to the congregations after Jesus couldn't have been written for that reason. How do I know? Because it is written Matthew 16:25. How can a law be for saving your life but then the Lord says that we are not to want to save our own lives. It is a contradiction. Isn't it? You might say that the same thing applies to having blood therapy. But, not really. Because it is usually about someone else wanting to save your life.

I am sure that the directive is about not hurrying to eat. Do you understand that bleeding takes time? The lesson? LEARN TO WAIT FOR GOOD THINGS.

It isn't about the superstitious fear of disrupting a dead thing's spirit.
That is what you believe.
But has any JW run a thread to trash what you believe in?
No!
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
Creationists are banned from using facepalms since they have such ridiculous beliefs. If you want to know something ask questions politely and properly. Asking "gotcha questions" when you are obviously wrong means that you should be faceplaming yourself.

Now please, if anyone has been "not smart" that is you. Why not try to ask proper questions. As you said this is a discussion. There are no more real debates between those that accept reality and creationists, there is only corrections of errant beliefs.

So do you think you could ask proper questions? Put on your big boy pants and try again.
More insults from you........ again.
It's all you've got.
 
Top