Putting the JW Stand on Evolution in Perspective

[oldbadger]

It will accelerate you toward the Earth at 0.62 mm/s².

That's not that quick, really.

 

[oldbadger]

Hey, @oldbadger ! Hope you're well.

That still leaves the question, "how did that life begin?"

The same way that everything began........
We don't even know if our Universe is one of billions, forming a cluster amongst billions of clusters. and on........

God is most certainly bigger than anybody can know.

That is why I cannot see how such vastness is particularly bothered about OldBadger over the little hound stretched across my feet. And so, as a Deist, I am cool with it all...... I am part of it all....... just a little.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well, because everything in our Solar system is dust from other Stars, and because the building blocks of life could well have reached here thus, that is the foundation of the idea.

But beyond that anything is possible. The human leap from pencils and paper thru' the television on to to digital technology whereby most children that I see have mobile phones which can take videos and send them these to their grannies far away, even speaking to same in Star-Trek fashion....... all in 100 years, .... I rather do project my thoughts towards what can be possible in 1000 years, or millions, or billions of years. What could be achieved is beyond our comprehension.


Why not?
We would certainly stop if it was convenient to see what we could harvest from a planet as we passed by. Look what we did to the Americas........

The amazing thing is, that the whole planet could have been cultivated. We thought that we knew it all 1000 years ago...... and 500....... and 100...... and last week. In another ten years we will have doubled or tripled or quadrupled our knowledge, and if we survive our greed and hatred maybe we might be able to travel interstellar one day? And then we would know how it happened for sure!

So you asked a pointless question that only tells us how little that you know. Not a smart debating technique.

 

[Astrophile]

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.

For one thing, this book was published in 1964, more than 50 years ago; a lot has happened in palaeontology since that time. Second, do you actually own a copy of this book? If you do, you must know that you have quoted three sentences, from two separate paragraphs, out of a 719-page book. Perhaps you should read some of the other pages in order to gain a better understanding of evolution and the history of life.

 

[Deeje]

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.

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

From your link....

"...while the health effects of cannabis have been questioned, studies have shown that the effects of alcohol are more detrimental. Some members of law enforcement have also questioned the resources being used to enforce the laws. In other words, the marijuana debate here has gone along the same lines as it has elsewhere in the world. So why are Australia's anti-pot laws so harsh?

Damon Adams is an former police officer who uses cannabis both recreationally and medicinally. Last year he ran as a candidate in the state senate for Drug Law Reform Australia, calling for cannabis to be legalized and regulated. And in his opinion there are many cops who agree with him. . . .

Adams said. “A lot of cops would like to see it legalized and regulated. It’s going to mean a lot more time for them on the streets to do proactive policing and go after criminals that actually have legitimate victims.”

“It's still illegal in Australia because a lot of people don't know why it was made illegal in the first place,” Adams added. “They haven't really wanted to re-educate themselves on something that they don't really know about.”

According to Alex Wodak, the president of the Australian Drug Law Reform Foundation, what initially led to cannabis being made illegal in Australia was the 1925 Geneva Convention, organized by the League of Nations. The meeting was convened to consider the use of opium and coca, but when the delegates arrived, cannabis and its derivatives had been added to the agenda.

“The meeting agreed to ban the recreational use of these three plant based drugs while not interfering with their medical and scientific use,” Wodak said. “After the meeting, the Commonwealth [of Australia] wrote to the states requesting them to prohibit recreational use of cannabis. The various states enacted legislation banning cannabis over the following years. . . . .

Ben Mostyn, a lawyer and founding member of the Australian Drug Law Reform Initiative at the University of New South Wales, said at the time cannabis was made illegal in Australia, most of the population had never heard of it. In agreeing to the terms of the 1925 Geneva Convention, Australia was simply bowing to international pressure from the United States and the League of Nations.

“Basically, the Australian politicians had this attitude: Well, drugs aren't a problem in Australia, so we may as well just do what the international world order is doing," Mostyn said."

So do you really know what was behind the idea to ban a harmless plant along with opium and coca? 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...and perfectly safe for self-administration the same way alcohol is, (which is perfectly legal). Like all things, it can be abused.

 

[Astrophile]

Why not?
We would certainly stop if it was convenient to see what we could harvest from a planet as we passed by. Look what we did to the Americas........

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.

 

[Deeje]

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.

Rubbish. What do you have to back that up?

It had way more to do with oil than it did with timber. If you have an hour or so up your sleeve, it would a very worthwhile exercise to take as peek into who and what created the world we live in....and the birth of social engineering. If you haven't got time...start at 52:56 to see how medicine was transformed by the oil baron, Rockefeller and his partners in crime. The fallout from the control of greedy commercial interests on our health and well-being, is nothing short of mind-boggling.

Doctors are taught in pharmaceutical company funded medical schools where they are trained, not in real medicine, but in how to prescribe their synthetic drugs in any given situation. It was a marriage made in heaven for both parties, ensuring customers and income for life.

Where there is big money...there is always big corruption. The lid is being lifted more and more as people are realizing how misplaced their trust in these institutions has been for decades. Manipulation of public opinion was never more despicable. These men could be in partnership with the devil himself....

 

[Astrophile]

That's not that quick, really.

As I explained, after a day of this acceleration you will be travelling at 120 mph and will have fallen about 1450 miles towards the Earth. To cut a fairly long calculation short, you would hit the Earth at about 10 km/s about 14 days and 16 hours after starting your journey.

 

[savagewind]

But he did say, Savage. He did.
Back in the day, the Israelites had a bunch of 613 laws which they claimed to have been instructed to obey by their God.
Sin was about breaking any of them, and SIN LED TO SICKNESS.

Sickness could show itself in several ways. Illness. Death. No Cohesion. Weakness. Failure. etc.....

You want an example?

Don't eat shellfish! The deadly illnesses bunched together and called 'Shellfish poison paralysis' are of the most dangerous sicknesses in the World, Savage. And so if a bunch of Israelites went down on the foreshore and through sheer hunger they ate the shellfish...... they could ALL be dead by next morning..... a dreadful death as they watched their loved ones die among them.

You see? SIN LEADS TO SICKNESS!

If you pick a law from the 507 that are not about ceremony or sacrifice I can show you how failure to keep it could lead an Israelite to weakness, sickness etc etc.

Sinning is not such a bad word. If JWs get the word wrong then it's up to them. I'm not going to go down to the Kingdom Hall this Sunday to stand outside and chant and howl out about my version of SIN is different to theirs...... Elder friends of mine would be embarrassed for me and call Mrs Badger to come and get me..... and then I would really really be in trouble.

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.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

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.

Die for lack of treatment with blood products to learn to wait for good things?

 

[Polymath257]

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

The moon is about half that distance and the Earth's gravity seems to be enough to keep the moon in orbit.

 

[Polymath257]

That's not that quick, really.

No, it isn't a large acceleration, but it is typical of things in orbit.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

The moon is about half that distance and the Earth's gravity seems to be enough to keep the moon in orbit.

If you can successfully explain the inverse square law to him I'll donate $20 to the charity of your choice

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Rubbish. What do you have to back that up?

It had way more to do with oil than it did with timber. If you have an hour or so up your sleeve, it would a very worthwhile exercise to take as peek into who and what created the world we live in....and the birth of social engineering. If you haven't got time...start at 52:56 to see how medicine was transformed by the oil baron, Rockefeller and his partners in crime. The fallout from the control of greedy commercial interests on our health and well-being, is nothing short of mind-boggling.

Doctors are taught in pharmaceutical company funded medical schools where they are trained, not in real medicine, but in how to prescribe their synthetic drugs in any given situation. It was a marriage made in heaven for both parties, ensuring customers and income for life.

Where there is big money...there is always big corruption. The lid is being lifted more and more as people are realizing how misplaced their trust in these institutions has been for decades. Manipulation of public opinion was never more despicable. These men could be in partnership with the devil himself....

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

That's not that quick, really.

No it's not. It is, however, constant and cumulative.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No it's not. It is, however, constant and cumulative.

No, it is constantly increasing, that inverse square thingy that you brought up

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

No, it is constantly increasing, that inverse square thingy that you brought up

Speed is, gravity and acceleration aren't.

 

[Polymath257]

Speed is, gravity and acceleration aren't.

Well, starting out at half a million miles, with speed initially 0, the speed will increase, but as you get closer, both the force of gravity and the acceleration will increase also.

Now, if you have the right initial speed perpendicular to the direction of the earth, you could get a circular orbit. In that case, the speed and magnitude of the acceleration would both be constant. But the velocity (speed with direction) and acceleration (which includes distance) would not be constant.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Well, starting out at half a million miles, with speed initially 0, the speed will increase, but as you get closer, both the force of gravity and the acceleration will increase also.

Now, if you have the right initial speed perpendicular to the direction of the earth, you could get a circular orbit. In that case, the speed and magnitude of the acceleration would both be constant. But the velocity (speed with direction) and acceleration (which includes distance) would not be constant.

I am aware, thank you. But if you intend to explain Newtonian mechanics to the uninitiated, I recommend initially discussing things in a static frame of reference before adding shifting constants.

 

[ecco]

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!

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.

I read it through, three times. "Common Descent is a fact! After 150 years, we still don't know how it happened, but.... it happened!"
Lol.

That's not something you really want to brag about. You read it through, three times, but still don't understand what it said.

So, either...

your reading comprehension skills are sorely lacking.​

or...

you intentionally block out anything that disagrees with your ingrained religious belief.

​

Probably both.