Would A Photo Like This Be Cringy?
Shopping & Style0 min ago
jehovas witnesses
80 Answers
Had a couple of JW's at the door today. One of them, an elderly lady, called a few weeks ago and we had a 'friendly' discusion then about the origins of the universe etc. However, not been scientifically minded, I wasnt entirely to refute what she was saying. Today, however, she (and her friend) started on the old 'evolution is just a theory' argument and the 'scientists think that we evolved from monkeys' argument, both of which I could quickly debunk. However, when I asked if they had ever read any Richard Dawkins material (I have) they asked who Richard Dawkins was??? The mind boggles. Probably the most famous creationist debunker on the planet and they had NEVER heard of him??...they asked if I meant HAWKINS???
No doubt they will be back again in the next week or so (particularly as I am always friendly to these self deluded folk... no need to be hostile towards the deluded).
Has anyone got any good questions that I could ask them (particularly re: evolution/creationism) that might make them think for themselves a little bit rather than reading the rubbish that they have to read in their magazines. (they gave me a magazine today, devoted to creationism)
It doesnt have to be the creation/evolution angle, anything that might make them think a little would be helpful.
(as I have a friend who is of the 'born again' variety, it could be usefull for him as well)
Thanks...
No doubt they will be back again in the next week or so (particularly as I am always friendly to these self deluded folk... no need to be hostile towards the deluded).
Has anyone got any good questions that I could ask them (particularly re: evolution/creationism) that might make them think for themselves a little bit rather than reading the rubbish that they have to read in their magazines. (they gave me a magazine today, devoted to creationism)
It doesnt have to be the creation/evolution angle, anything that might make them think a little would be helpful.
(as I have a friend who is of the 'born again' variety, it could be usefull for him as well)
Thanks...
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by kryptic. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
This doesn't relate to creationism / evolution but it's still an interesting question...
“If God does exist then why does He allow the existence of Hell? If an all powerful God loves everyone equally he could easily make Hell disappear and forgive everyone's sins. If God chooses not make Hell disappear, one has to ask why?
People who sin go to Hell. God allows Hell to exist. God can forgive any sin imaginable if He wants to. God can make Hell disappear. Seeing as God can erase Hell and forgive any sin but chooses not to do either of these things, God must want some people to go to Hell. If God wants some people to suffer eternal torment, what sort of God is He?”
“If God does exist then why does He allow the existence of Hell? If an all powerful God loves everyone equally he could easily make Hell disappear and forgive everyone's sins. If God chooses not make Hell disappear, one has to ask why?
People who sin go to Hell. God allows Hell to exist. God can forgive any sin imaginable if He wants to. God can make Hell disappear. Seeing as God can erase Hell and forgive any sin but chooses not to do either of these things, God must want some people to go to Hell. If God wants some people to suffer eternal torment, what sort of God is He?”
If I were you, I'd stick to contradictions and logical blind alleys that a religious belief leads you into. Discussing evolution on the doorstep will be extremely difficult in the same way that discussing astrophysics on the doorstep with someone who hasn't got the faintest idea what a Roche limit is, is (note to self - poor sentence construction).
Unless your particular Witnesses are particularly well educated in evolutionary biology (which seems unlikely), it's going to be difficult to establish any sort of common ground upon which to base an argument that you can both understand. However, one of the most common arguments that creationists come up with is the human (or mammalian) eye. They say that it's such a complicated organ that it cannot have 'evolved' as unless everything is in place, it simply wouldn't work – the lens, the cornea, the posterior chamber, optic disc, etc.
This is complete nonsense and yet is a staple of the creationist argument. The evidence for the evolution of the eye is overwhelming. There are a multitude of creatures that exist today that can 'see' and yet don't have mammalian type eyes. Most insects, for example, have 'compound eyes' – a series of light detecting cells which are more than adequate for the organism that they serve and yet don't allow the creature to 'see' in any great detail. Sometimes the eyes in very small creatures are no more than 'pits' into which light is captured to help the creature sense between light and dark.
Unless your particular Witnesses are particularly well educated in evolutionary biology (which seems unlikely), it's going to be difficult to establish any sort of common ground upon which to base an argument that you can both understand. However, one of the most common arguments that creationists come up with is the human (or mammalian) eye. They say that it's such a complicated organ that it cannot have 'evolved' as unless everything is in place, it simply wouldn't work – the lens, the cornea, the posterior chamber, optic disc, etc.
This is complete nonsense and yet is a staple of the creationist argument. The evidence for the evolution of the eye is overwhelming. There are a multitude of creatures that exist today that can 'see' and yet don't have mammalian type eyes. Most insects, for example, have 'compound eyes' – a series of light detecting cells which are more than adequate for the organism that they serve and yet don't allow the creature to 'see' in any great detail. Sometimes the eyes in very small creatures are no more than 'pits' into which light is captured to help the creature sense between light and dark.
Continued....
The idea that an eye needs to work 100% otherwise it is useless is absurd and yet is one that is trotted out time and again by creationists. They are desperate to punch holes in evolutionary theory as it runs counter to their creationist world-view. They know that tackling evolutionary theory head on is going to end up with them looking rather foolish, so instead they try to claim that certain things that exist in nature cannot be explained by evolution. The 'eye' is their favourite, followed closely by 'feathers'.
Both the 'eye' and 'feather' arguments have no merit. They both ignore observed evidence and critical thinking and both assume that unless they are fully formed, they are useless to the creature that possesses them – which is demonstrably false.
The idea that an eye needs to work 100% otherwise it is useless is absurd and yet is one that is trotted out time and again by creationists. They are desperate to punch holes in evolutionary theory as it runs counter to their creationist world-view. They know that tackling evolutionary theory head on is going to end up with them looking rather foolish, so instead they try to claim that certain things that exist in nature cannot be explained by evolution. The 'eye' is their favourite, followed closely by 'feathers'.
Both the 'eye' and 'feather' arguments have no merit. They both ignore observed evidence and critical thinking and both assume that unless they are fully formed, they are useless to the creature that possesses them – which is demonstrably false.
Birdie:
Regarding the eye argument bringing up the insect argument is heading in the wrong direction. They come from a completely different branch of the evolutionary tree. They parted from our line when our ancestors began the embryonic development of the digestive tract with the anus while theirs started with the mouth.
If you want an example of the earliest steps in the progress from the most primitive chordates toward the vertebrate there is no better example then the hagfish.
These creatures have no fins, eyes incapable of forming an image because it has no with no lense, no jaw, teeth made of keratin, only a partial cartilage skull with a fibrous sheath around the brain.
They even absorb food through their skin.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hagfish
Regarding the eye argument bringing up the insect argument is heading in the wrong direction. They come from a completely different branch of the evolutionary tree. They parted from our line when our ancestors began the embryonic development of the digestive tract with the anus while theirs started with the mouth.
If you want an example of the earliest steps in the progress from the most primitive chordates toward the vertebrate there is no better example then the hagfish.
These creatures have no fins, eyes incapable of forming an image because it has no with no lense, no jaw, teeth made of keratin, only a partial cartilage skull with a fibrous sheath around the brain.
They even absorb food through their skin.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hagfish
birdie is right, as usual. These JWs came to our house recently and left their anti-evolution booklet with my wife who, although a Christian, has no time for them, but is always polite.
When they came back a week or so later I was the only one in and when they asked my opinion of their booklet I told them that it was a load of rubbish, that every "argument" in it had been debunked many times. When they asked for an example and I started to give one I realised that they knew nothing whatsoever about evolution. I suggested that they learn something about it from, say, the brilliant books by Richard Dawkins. And - yes!- they had never heard of him!
Only goes to illustrate the old adage - that there are no real opponents of evolution, merely people who don't or won't understand it.
When they came back a week or so later I was the only one in and when they asked my opinion of their booklet I told them that it was a load of rubbish, that every "argument" in it had been debunked many times. When they asked for an example and I started to give one I realised that they knew nothing whatsoever about evolution. I suggested that they learn something about it from, say, the brilliant books by Richard Dawkins. And - yes!- they had never heard of him!
Only goes to illustrate the old adage - that there are no real opponents of evolution, merely people who don't or won't understand it.
beso, would you mail me at [email protected]. I have a message for you - don't worry I'm not a JW :-)
-- answer removed --
Beso - “... bringing up the insect argument is heading in the wrong direction. They come from a completely different branch of the evolutionary tree...”
I know. I wasn't trying to suggest that insects and mammals came from the same evolutionary line – at least, not since the emergence of multicellular creatures.
What I was trying to say (but I admit that it may have been poorly elucidated) was that 'eyes' in the animal kingdom come in all shapes and sizes, from the rudimentary to the exotically complex. Any biological mechanism that allows a creature to 'see' is better than nothing. The evolution of the mammalian eye has been a long and difficult process which has no doubt lead to many blind alleys (pun intended).
The creationist view that the human eye is perfect and therefore must have been designed is quite laughable. Who would design a biological tool that allows its owner to 'see', only to then limit it with a relatively huge blind spot, an upside-down image that has to be inverted by the brain and a relatively narrow perception of light that prohibits us from seeing into the ultra-violet and infra-red spectrum?
“If it turns out that there is a God, I don't think that he's evil. But the worst that you can say about him is that basically he's an underachiever.” - Woody Allen
I know. I wasn't trying to suggest that insects and mammals came from the same evolutionary line – at least, not since the emergence of multicellular creatures.
What I was trying to say (but I admit that it may have been poorly elucidated) was that 'eyes' in the animal kingdom come in all shapes and sizes, from the rudimentary to the exotically complex. Any biological mechanism that allows a creature to 'see' is better than nothing. The evolution of the mammalian eye has been a long and difficult process which has no doubt lead to many blind alleys (pun intended).
The creationist view that the human eye is perfect and therefore must have been designed is quite laughable. Who would design a biological tool that allows its owner to 'see', only to then limit it with a relatively huge blind spot, an upside-down image that has to be inverted by the brain and a relatively narrow perception of light that prohibits us from seeing into the ultra-violet and infra-red spectrum?
“If it turns out that there is a God, I don't think that he's evil. But the worst that you can say about him is that basically he's an underachiever.” - Woody Allen
Birdie:
I understand what you are saying but I was just pointing out that the primitive eye of the hagfish is an excellent example of a useful but partly developed version of the vertebrate eye. Indeed the hagfish is an excellent example of the partly developed vertebrate.
The upside down image argument doesn't cut it at all. The brain simply interprets the nerve signals and it doesn't have any preconceived notion of up for itself.
A better one is the fact that the light sensitive layer is obscured by the blood supply and nerve layer. This is also the reason for the blind spot because the optic nerve must pass through from the inside of the eye. In eagles they do without the blood vessels and provide the nutrient by washing the retina with free blood.
Another funny thing is that the most sensitive part of the eye (the fovea) is almost insensitive to blue. Consequently when looking at a small blue spot at a distance, it either can't be seen or changes colour when it is imaged by the fovea.
Some animals that live in the arctic has ultraviolet vision because snow and ice reflect it.
Love the Woody Allen quote.
There are many examples of very poor engineering in the design of animals but some do it better than others suggesting there would be multiple designers at work. The God that designed the cephalopod (squid and octopus) eye was obviously far more competent and got it the right way round.
I understand what you are saying but I was just pointing out that the primitive eye of the hagfish is an excellent example of a useful but partly developed version of the vertebrate eye. Indeed the hagfish is an excellent example of the partly developed vertebrate.
The upside down image argument doesn't cut it at all. The brain simply interprets the nerve signals and it doesn't have any preconceived notion of up for itself.
A better one is the fact that the light sensitive layer is obscured by the blood supply and nerve layer. This is also the reason for the blind spot because the optic nerve must pass through from the inside of the eye. In eagles they do without the blood vessels and provide the nutrient by washing the retina with free blood.
Another funny thing is that the most sensitive part of the eye (the fovea) is almost insensitive to blue. Consequently when looking at a small blue spot at a distance, it either can't be seen or changes colour when it is imaged by the fovea.
Some animals that live in the arctic has ultraviolet vision because snow and ice reflect it.
Love the Woody Allen quote.
There are many examples of very poor engineering in the design of animals but some do it better than others suggesting there would be multiple designers at work. The God that designed the cephalopod (squid and octopus) eye was obviously far more competent and got it the right way round.
Latest Posts
Family & Relationships2 mins ago
Crosswords7 mins ago
ChatterBank14 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles15 mins ago
