Just Accidental?

[Olinda]

I apologise, I was mixing you up with a poster who had the same or a similar avatar.

OK, thanks. Since you didn't address any other points in detail, I'll just summarize by giving you my 'mindset' :
I would agree that until recently blood transfusions were carried out more often than would now be recommended. After all science 'evolves' (see? on topic) and we didn't always have the tools such as bloodless surgery techniques, cytoscope, large-scale statistical information etc. In any case, it is important for the patient, family and medical personnel to consider carefully the pros and cons of any invasive therapy.
I would not agree, however, that this in any way validates your religious position. It is entirely your right to hold a belief and request that any treatment complies with your wishes. But science and religion are totally different things, and the present medical advice on blood transfusions in no way matches or supports your belief that no blood transfusion is acceptable, even your own blood.
After all, if you are confident in your faith, why would you need external validation?

 

[Deeje]

If you accept the bible's Creation and Flood stories, as the literal truth, then YOU are by definition, a "creationist".

Sorry but I do accept the creation and flood stories because Jesus referred to them as actual events and used the flood to illustrate what would happen again....this time not by inundation. (Matthew 24:37-39; Matthew 19:4)

To accept the Genesis myths as literal truth, but to deny yourself being a creationist, is just another one of your weird need to misrepresent terminology with your own versions of terms.

You call it the Genesis myth...I call it the Genesis account. Calling it a myth doesn't make it one.
JW's don't fit in with any of Christendom's terminologies. They don't apply to us because we hold no beliefs in common with them.

And you don't accept science. You never have.

On the contrary, we have quite a few scientists in different fields in our ranks. We very much appreciate science...just not when it presents suggestions and then markets them as facts to eliminate the Creator.

You think you know the truth, but no one who disagree with you do, which would really make laugh if you weren't serious about it.

You think you know the truth.....but what if you're wrong? By sticking to your beliefs, that there is no Creator, you have way more to lose than we do. I think that in your heart you know this and that is why you are so angry.

Sorry, but there are theists who also accept evolutionary biology to be fact. Evolution has nothing to do with people being atheists and theists, it is all about biology.

Theists can believe whatever they like. But any person who calls themselves a Christian and who supports evolution has sold out to popular opinion to save face. I believe that is the only thing that will get saved.

Do you not believe in Genesis 1 & 2, and 6 to 8, as literal, historical or scientific?

• If yes, then you are a creationist.

I believe that Genesis 1 & 2 are literal, historical and scientific as far as we know what happened. There are not many details, so how can we answer questions that are not covered in scripture? No one was there to record the events, so Moses had them revealed to him by the only one who was there. I believe him because I have no reason to think it isn't true. Science certainly has not convinced me otherwise.

The flood was also a literal, historical event IMV. I don't know if it has any science to back it up apart from some archeology.
If they have dug up palm trees under Siberian ice, then that assumes that the earth at one time enjoyed a uniform, temperate climate, which is in keeping with what the Bible says about the water canopy used by God to flood the earth. The volume of water held frozen at the poles, if it thawed, would again flood the world. Isn't that why we are hearing alarm bells with global warming?

• If no, then what are you?

I am a believer in Intelligent Design. I believe that there are forces in the universe that science has yet to discover....and beings that exist in other realms. Can science detect them?....define them?....categorically state that they can't exist? No they cannot. All they can say is...we have no way to test for their existence.

Getting rid of the myth mentality might actually help people to see the reality of the Creator's existence. We see the reality of his work all around us, yet there are those who choose not to see. That's OK, the Creator invites whom he invites to see the truth. If people haven't received an invitation, then perhaps they haven't got what he is looking for.

 

[Darkstorn]

JW's don't fit in with any of Christendom's terminologies. They don't apply to us because we hold no beliefs in common with them.

That's an obvious lie. You believe in Jesus, you believe in a creator, you believe in the flood etc. You are Christian. You even quote straight from the damn bible! You just like to pretend that you're somehow better instead.

You're just like them, at best equally correct.

On the contrary, we have quite a few scientists in different fields in our ranks.

That's a lie: JW's by definition cannot accept the findings of science. A JW scientist is an oxymoron.

We very much appreciate science...just not when it presents suggestions and then markets them as facts to eliminate the Creator.

So, in plain speech, you only care about science when it goes along with your opinions. I.E you're fine with it when it supports your conclusion.

I make the claim that you don't appreciate science at all, and are being dishonest with that claim. I make the claim that you don't even KNOW enough science to appreciate it.

You know enough scripture or dogma regarding your religion to make a decision to be selective about science. Science isn't about cherry picking though; Your religion is. You openly claiming to be selective regarding science doesn't reinforce your point.

It means you don't know what you're talking about.

You think you know the truth.....but what if you're wrong?

What would you answer to people who make no claims regarding knowing the truth? It's not about picking sides, things are NOT black and white and it's a problem for YOU to not realize that.

Only you made the claim that you know something to be true: ALL those who are arguing you "from the side of science" are actually claiming that it's IMPOSSIBLE to know ANYTHING 100%. If you actually read science journals, this should be obvious to you.

But you obviously do not understand the science.

By sticking to your beliefs, that there is no Creator, you have way more to lose than we do. I think that in your heart you know this and that is why you are so angry.

I think it's intellectual laziness and dishonesty on your part to still imagine that EVERYONE who disagrees with your must be an atheist. I am not an atheist. And i have never disagreed with any other human more than i do disagree with your inane claims.

Your claims aren't even strong enough for you to be able to defend them without going into insults or spamming smileys. Your arguments are NOT strong enough on their own merits. They make you look like a dishonest simpleton.

Getting rid of the myth mentality might actually help people to see the reality of the Creator's existence.

Crap like this is what i mean when i say her arguments are not strong on their own merits. Elevating opinion to the level of fact? That's literally shooting one's argument in the foot.

We see the reality of his work all around us

You haven't shown that we do though. It's entirely up to you to do that if you're going to use it as an argument. Otherwise it remains an unsubstantiated subjective opinion, mistaken for a fact.

yet there are those who choose not to see.

This is a direct personal insult to ALL who oppose your argument.

We just "choose" not to see your evidence. From internet pictures. Pictures of ducks and parrots etc. How can anyone be so arrogant?

It's up to you to show HOW that is evidence in the first place. Otherwise you are literally, being dishonest. You are trying to change the way a debate works.

That's OK, the Creator invites whom he invites to see the truth.

Evidence. Now.

If people haven't received an invitation, then perhaps they haven't got what he is looking for.

Show that you got invited first. You have to show your premise to be true before you can form an argument.

This premise assumes you are better than us and we are not worthy, and that's the reason we don't see what you see on an internet picture.

You constantly cry to moderators about supposed insults towards you. I make the claim that most of what you say is insulting to those who try to give you a proper debate and you squander the opportunity to instead proselytize and fuel your agenda:

You don't even care about arguing with logic and honesty. ALL you care is that you can somehow do what you think is God's work. I didn't know being dishonest towards your fellow man was something JW's taught to their disciples actively.

 

[gnostic]

Nothing to do with JW's. We are not affiliated with any church in Christendom. We are not "creationists" nor do we believe in "creation science"....there is just provable science and theoretical science. We support provable science and what the Bible says is the order of creation. Try reading Genesis 1.

What I have highlighted in red. You don't know what you are talking about; you are confused: "provable science" is "theoretical science".

I think you actually mean experimental science or empirical science, not provable science.

• Theoretical science relies on (A) "proof", and (B) theoretical scientists are trying to "prove" their assertion or statements with maths (proofs).
• Empirical science relies on (A) evidences and tests, and (B) scientists are trying to verify or refute their statements with evidences or tests.

I have written a number of times, here in this thread and elsewhere, explaining the differences between proof and evidence, the differences between theoretical science and empirical science (also known as experimental science).

Apparently, you still don't know the differences.

Theoretical science is focused on untestable but provable statements (e.g. theory or hypothesis). Provable as in "proof". Proof is a mathematical statement, like

• mathematical equations
• and mathematical or logical models.

(A) Theoretical science and proofs are highly logical and highly abstract, where the solution can be proven mathematically (eg very complex mathematical equations), but cannot be currently be tested or observed empirically.​

(B) Empirical science or experimental science focused on falsifiable and testable statements (e.g. theory or hypothesis), where statements can be observed, through discovery of evidences or through tests and experiments. These evidences or tests must be repeatable, and verifiable, e.g. empirical theory means the solution through evidences or test results are

• observable,
• measurable
• and quantifiable.

The tests or evidences are used to refute or verify the statement to be false or true, respectively.​

Although experimental or empirical science will often some mathematical equations (hence proofs), finding evidences or performing tests is more essential than relying solely on maths (proof).

Empirical or experimental science is more objective than theoretical science, because it rely on evidences to verify or refute the statements. Theoretical science can be bias, because you would be relying on the scientists' logic. For example, there are number of competing theoretical heories on String Theory, so whose equations are true, when none of them can be tested.

Evolution (e.g. mutation, natural selection, genetic drift, etc) is empirical science. Since there are evidences to support evolution, e.g. fossils, vaccines for viral or bacteria diseases, etc, evolution is not theoretical science.

Charles Darwin found observable evidences for natural selection, early on in his voyage on HMS Beagle, during 1830s, and more evidences while working at university and museums, before publishing his work (On the Origin of Species) in 1859.

Some science can start out as theoretical science, but once evidences are discovered, it becomes experimental science. General Relativity, Quantum Physics and the Big Bang cosmology started out being theoretical, until they found testable and verifiable evidences to support their theories.

The Big Bang theory (or the expanding universe model) was first independently theoreticalrecorded in 1922 (by Alexander Friedmann) and 1927 (by Georges Lemaître), but evidences were not found until 1929 by Edwin Hubble with red-shifting (galaxies moving away from each other, indicating universe is expanding), and in 1964 by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson had discovered Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR). That is an example of theoretical turn empirical science.

As to...

I am a believer in Intelligent Design. I believe that there are forces in the universe that science has yet to discover....and beings that exist in other realms. Can science detect them?....define them?....categorically state that they can't exist? No they cannot. All they can say is...we have no way to test for their existence.

Intelligent Design is not "empirical science", if it is untestable.

But Intelligent Design isn't theoretical science too, because there are no mathematical proofs (i.e. no equations) to prove the existence of the Designer.

So where does that leave Intelligent Design?

1. Intelligent Design isn't "science" because it cannot be tested (i.e. not empirical) and it cannot be proven (i.e. not theoretical). Hence, ID is pseudoscience.
2. Like the religious creationism, ID is based solely on belief and faith.
3. And ID, whether it be from Discovery Institute or from JW version of ID, they are both creationism, pretending to be not creationism. Which revealed how dishonest both groups are.
4. Like Discovery Institute, JW creationism/ID use misinformation (propaganda), not science.

 

[stevevw]

Actually you do not know that, you believe that, and that belief is entirely devoid of objective evidence.

I don't know according to you and the way in which someone without faith will see things because they will want the physical evidence. As the bible says we all have the evidence of God within us and this is seen in His creation. Faith is the evidence of things unseen. So you cannot speak for me as you do not know my heart or faith in God. When I look into the night sky and see the moon floating perfectly in place I see Gods creation.
Romans 1:20
For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
Hebrews 1:11
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

 

[Sapiens]

I don't know according to you and the way in which someone without faith will see things because they will want the physical evidence. As the bible says we all have the evidence of God within us and this is seen in His creation. Faith is the evidence of things unseen. So you cannot speak for me as you do not know my heart or faith in God. When I look into the night sky and see the moon floating perfectly in place I see Gods creation.
Romans 1:20
For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
Hebrews 1:11
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Now you are just preaching superstitious nonsense.

 

[gnostic]

You call it the Genesis myth...I call it the Genesis account. Calling it a myth doesn't make it one.

The Genesis being a collection of traditional narratives actually make them myths, particularly that of the Creation and the Flood.

And these two have their origins in Babylonian religious myths, where the Hebrew authors derived and adapted their stories.

It is not just that the Assyrians and Babylonians have respectively conquered Israel and Judah during the 1st half of the 1st millennium BCE. No, it is because the Babylonian myths, like the epic of Gilgamesh and other tales were found as far west in both the 2nd and 1st millennia BCE.

Clay tablets were written and found as far west as Egypt and the Hittite capital (Hattusa), in the mid-2nd millennium BCE. Fragments have also being found in the Ugaritic citystate Ugarit (Ras Shamra) and further south in the Canaanite city of Megiddo.

The Babylonian story of Utnapishtim of the 1st millennium and late 2nd millennium BCE was very popular in the Middle East, and were derived from the older Akkadian-Old Babylonian Atrahasis (Epic of Atrahasis), and Atrahasis is derived from the older 3rd millennium Sumerian Ziusudra (the Eridu Genesis, the Death of Gilgames and the king list of Sumer).

Noah's story of constructing the ark were derived and adapted from Utnapishtim. The fact that clay tablets were found in many different places in the Middle East and the fact that there are no evidences of any writings (especially Genesis) of Hebrew existing before 1000 BCE, it is clear where the Jewish authors got their ideas of their origin from.

The Levant region, particularly the 2nd millennium Canaan and 1st millennium Israel and Judah were place of important trade routes between the rich kingdoms of Egypt in the west and Mesopotamia in the east. So naturally Mesopotamian Myths would find their ways in kingdoms of Israel and Judah.

 

[stevevw]

Now you are just preaching superstitious nonsense.

That is according to you. There are millions and millions of people who disagree. I am stating that my faith gives me the evidence as strong as any physical evidence does for you. So how would you know as you do not have faith in God? How can you tell me what I do and don't believe and find true in my own heart.

 

[stevevw]

This argument makes basically no sense. Do you actually understand how and why natural selection works? It's really very simple:

If a particular organism stands a better chance at surviving and producing offspring, then it stands a better chance at surviving and producing fertile offspring.

What about that is a "spanner in the works" of living systems? It's an inevitable result of living systems that naturally produce diversity in environments that produce attrition. The rest of your argument is baseless and nonsensical at best.

Yes, I understand how natural selection works. This still does not explain how selection and random mutations can blindly build a complex structure that needs the precise to fit exactly in a multidimensional way otherwise it will undermine the entire structure.

 

[gnostic]

That is according to you. There are millions and millions of people who disagree. I am stating that my faith gives me the evidence as strong as any physical evidence does for you.

Faith is merely a conviction in your belief.

That's not evidence.

Your "stated" faith is no more than just you expressing your personal opinion, and it would be unverifiable opinion.

Evidence required verification. Evidences are something that you can observe, detect, measure, quantify and test.

• How do you that for God?
  
• How do you measure or test Jesus' miracles of healing the sick or exorcising demons?
  
• How do you test or quantify people going to heaven or hell?

Faith is taking something that you believe, without evidences. That's what faith is.

Faith and evidence don't go together, because they are oxymoron.

 

[Polymath257]

Yes, I understand how natural selection works. This still does not explain how selection and random mutations can blindly build a complex structure that needs the precise to fit exactly in a multidimensional way otherwise it will undermine the entire structure.

Which shows you do NOT understand how natural selection works. Mutation and selection produce highly complex systems very quickly. That is the whole point.

 

[Polymath257]

That is according to you. There are millions and millions of people who disagree. I am stating that my faith gives me the evidence as strong as any physical evidence does for you. So how would you know as you do not have faith in God? How can you tell me what I do and don't believe and find true in my own heart.

Sorry, your personal experiences, no matter how important to you, do NOT prove the existence of a deity. At best, they prove you to be deluded. That's what we call someone who hears voices that are not there.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Yes, I understand how natural selection works. This still does not explain how selection and random mutations can blindly build a complex structure that needs the precise to fit exactly in a multidimensional way otherwise it will undermine the entire structure.

Your own question contains the answer in it - the process isn't "blind", it is selective. Obviously a selective process which is separating fit from unfit is going to favour living organisms whose bodies actually function better in a given environment rather than ones whose bodies function worse. What about that are you finding difficult to understand?

 

[jonathan180iq]

Yes, I understand how natural selection works. This still does not explain how selection and random mutations can blindly build a complex structure that needs the precise to fit exactly in a multidimensional way otherwise it will undermine the entire structure.

Biology is pragmatic. If something works, it sticks around. If it doesn't work, it dies.

Things that work live longer lives and have a higher chance of producing healthy offspring, thus continuing the passing on of working information. Once something stops being beneficial, it start getting weeded out.

Annual vaccinations and the development of new antibiotics are a good example of this and it's something that should be accessible and understandable to most grown ups. Why must new vaccines and antibiotics be developed? Answer that question, and you'll be on the road to understanding the single greatest principle in biology.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

You think you know the truth.....but what if you're wrong? By sticking to your beliefs, that there is no Creator, you have way more to lose than we do.

Not so. You may be missing Muslim heaven.

Or an authentic existence on this planet. You've already sacrificed so much for your beliefs. Faith has a pernicious effect on critical thought, one of your greatest assets if you develop the ability.

You've chosen to ignore and disbelieve some of the ideas that give my life meaning - help me understand my place in the cosmos, and what I can hope for from life. I get great satisfaction in such knowledge, and wish I had more of it.

Some believers seem to live life as if they're at a bus stop waiting to leave this world. What's the cost of that if wrong?

Rebutting Pascal Wager has been done to death, but it remains fun.

The flood was also a literal, historical event IMV. I don't know if it has any science to back it up apart from some archeology.

Science repudiates the story. You have a water accounting problem to start with.

Also, no archeology supports a global flood.

If they have dug up palm trees under Siberian ice, then that assumes that the earth at one time enjoyed a uniform, temperate climate, which is in keeping with what the Bible says about the water canopy used by God to flood the earth. The volume of water held frozen at the poles, if it thawed, would again flood the world. Isn't that why we are hearing alarm bells with global warming?

No, that is not what that means. Palm trees don't grow in arctic climes. Tectonic plates surf the magma. They take continents with them.

I am a believer in Intelligent Design. I believe that there are forces in the universe that science has yet to discover....and beings that exist in other realms. Can science detect them?....define them?....categorically state that they can't exist? No they cannot. All they can say is...we have no way to test for their existence.

Then there is no reason to consider these other realms and forces further before finding evidence for them.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

That is according to you. There are millions and millions of people who disagree. I am stating that my faith gives me the evidence as strong as any physical evidence does for you. So how would you know as you do not have faith in God? How can you tell me what I do and don't believe and find true in my own heart.

He didn't say that you don't believe it.

Your beliefs don't matter except to you. What others are interested in is that which you can convincingly demonstrate and/or argue.

What you are calling evidence is not what others mean by the word. Evidence is not private. It's - well, uh - evident.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Yes, I understand how natural selection works. This still does not explain how selection and random mutations can blindly build a complex structure that needs the precise to fit exactly in a multidimensional way otherwise it will undermine the entire structure.

You belie your claim of understanding the mechanism of evolution, which does explain and even predicts incremental complexity in biological systems and populations over time whenever increased complexity results in increased biological fitness. The theory predicts that it will occur, and that nature will select for it. That's what we observe.

 

[ChristineM]

Sorry, your personal experiences, no matter how important to you, do NOT prove the existence of a deity. At best, they prove you to be deluded. That's what we call someone who hears voices that are not there.

Hi. Good to see you.

 

[Polymath257]

Hi. Good to see you.

Always good to see an old friend!

 

[ChristineM]

Yes, I understand how natural selection works. This still does not explain how selection and random mutations can blindly build a complex stroucture that needs the precise to fit exactly in a multidimensional way otherwise it will undermine the entire structure.

Each human being (as well as most other animals) have between 60 and 200 !mutations per individual. In the case of the human race, that's around one trillion mutations between those individuals alive today. Of course not will will be successful but those that are are carried on to the next generation by natural selection.

As for multidimensional - straw man - we live in 3 dimensions and 3 so 3 dimensions is the natural state. Or perhaps you have isolated a 2 dimensional genetic mutation to allow you to make such an irrelevant claim