How to reason with Jehovah's Witnesses?

[stijndeloose]

Hi, all!

I'm in the middle of an e-mail discussion with a relative of mine who is one of Jehovah's Witnesses.

Her latest mail said the following (paraphrase + translation):

"I have been thinking a lot about what you said recently. We just got a new DVD about creation that is very interesting. It talks about ice, the complexity of water, that it's God's creation. When I see all that, I don't understand how you can believe that everything has evolved. That's not possible.

The fact that we recover from illnesses, that we can smell, see and feel. How did that come to be if everything evolved? Moreover, how come we see colours, and not just black and white? Our cells have been created to continue to reproduce themselves forever - why does that process suddenly stop? How come we use only 10 percent of our brain capacity during our lifetime? Doesn't that mean that we were made to live and learn forever?

I think these are things worth thinking about."

It's been a bit difficult to get through to her, and to get her to at least dare to question her own beliefs.

What would you all reply?

Thanks!

S.

[Fnord]

Ask them if they prefer version 3.5 or 4.0 of AD&D, or if they're one of the old-timers who still long for the glory days of 1st and 2nd Edition.

I know that it's a "Red Herring" and has nothing to do with the conversation you've been having, but it will be fun to get their reaction.

[IMST]

When they were bashing on my door on a Saturday morning, my knowledge of their previous failures to accurately predict the end of the world made them go away much faster. The exchange was something like this:
Them: Do you have an optimistic or pessimistic view of the future?
Me: generally optimistic, but I'm sure you'll disagree.
Them: I think you're confusing us with someone else.
Me: I'm confusing you with Jehovah's Witnesses.
Them: Jehovah's Witnesses have an optimistic view of the future!!!1!
Me: How many times as the world ended now?
Them: *run away*

[stijndeloose]

Which is exactly the problem - I don't want her to run away! I want her to start thinking critically...

And mentioning their previous predictions is, unfortunately, not going to help: they have excuses for them (and they would stop listening to me as I'd be considered an apostate).

Thanks, though! :)

[Third Eye Open]

You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't arrive at through reason.

[bickerer]

I have never understood how anyone could doubt evolution. Look around you, all the food that you eat, every domesticated animal, every hybrid rose or rhubarb plant or house cat or (dare I mention it) banana has been tinkered with by people. We "evolved" plants and animals to suit our needs. We have "selected" for traits that we prefer. How could nature, if left to her own devices, not be able to do so as well? The fossil record, superbugs, and the vast cacophony of related life on the planet all seem to point in one direction, in my opinion. I'll bet you a donut, though, that you have no more chance of convincing her then you do of suddenly springing from bed one early morning and taking it into your head to go off, tracts in hand, to ring doorbells and be yelled at by angry sleeper-inners.

[Daald]

I would point her to some of these new Dawkins videos on evolution:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o92x6AvxCFg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wh0F4FBLJRE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WBEtw7esmvg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNN2E2bWU3A
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUozZo8nOpY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-r_YhATOYA

I personally like them.

Also tell her something like this. Just because she doesn't understand multi variable calculus, or quantum mechanics or any other complex subject doesn't mean that there are not people that do. It is not in the domain of god just in the domain of her ignorance.

As for old age. Ask her if a more specialized being was able to live forever wouldn't that being at one point compete for resources with his offspring forcing stagnation and eventual species extinction?

Also, since she uses only 10% of her brain, can she tell you which portion of that 90% you can remove.

[Pure Argent]

Hi, all!

I'm in the middle of an e-mail discussion with a relative of mine who is one of Jehovah's Witnesses.

Her latest mail said the following (paraphrase + translation):

"I have been thinking a lot about what you said recently. We just got a new DVD about creation that is very interesting. It talks about ice, the complexity of water, that it's God's creation. When I see all that, I don't understand how you can believe that everything has evolved. That's not possible.

The fact that we recover from illnesses, that we can smell, see and feel. How did that come to be if everything evolved? Moreover, how come we see colours, and not just black and white? Our cells have been created to continue to reproduce themselves forever - why does that process suddenly stop? How come we use only 10 percent of our brain capacity during our lifetime? Doesn't that mean that we were made to live and learn forever?

I think these are things worth thinking about."

It's been a bit difficult to get through to her, and to get her to at least dare to question her own beliefs.

What would you all reply?

Thanks!

S.

Well, here's what I'd say. Keep in mind, none of this is particularly deep thinking. And you have absolutely no chance of making headway against ground-in religion.

ICE/WATER: The fact that water is so interesting doesn't matter. It would be the same way if God had created the universe. Its properties come from its molecular structure, not from some divine power controlling it.

SENSES: Genetic mutation brought about our ability to see and hear and think and feel. This mutation is rare, but the great thing about evolution is that it takes so long that mutation has plenty of chances to get it right.
Consider a race of proto-fish who have no brains or other sensory organs. They just drift along, hoping for the best. One day, a proto-fish is born whose genes, entirely through chance, have mutated in exactly the right way: it now sports a shiny new stripe on one side that acts as a primitive light-sensing organ - the distant ancestor of eyes.
Because this proto-fish can now see predators approaching, it can swim away, thereby saving itself. And, since it can more easily distinguish fish of its own kind, it has its pick of mates. So its genes are passed on; its children all have this light-sensing stripe.
Then one of the light-stripe-fish's children mates, then that fish's children mate, and so on and so on, until, hundreds of years later, a fish is born who not only has the light-stripe but also a pair of skin-patches which vibrate with changes in the ocean waters! This fish can hear! This makes it even easier to avoid predators, ensuring that this fish gets the chance to have babies as well. And its babies all have the proto-ears too!
And so on and so on. Hope this helps!

[stijndeloose]

I'll bet you a donut, though, that you have no more chance of convincing her then you do of suddenly springing from bed one early morning and taking it into your head to go off, tracts in hand, to ring doorbells and be yelled at by angry sleeper-inners.

Been there, done that! :D

I was one of them, a little over eight years ago. And I'm still wondering what exactly got me thinking. Although it was probably a lot of things.

Overall, I'm afraid you might be right. But it's sort of frustrating. I don't mind them believing in God. But there's a whole bunch of other things that I DO mind them believing in.

[stijndeloose]

I would point her to some of these new Dawkins videos on evolution:

GREAT!! Thanks! I tried to get her to read The God Delusion, but the title was enough to get her to refuse.


It is not in the domain of god just in the domain of her ignorance.

I agree, though I'd prefer phrasing it a little differently as to not offend her! :D

Also, since she uses only 10% of her brain, can she tell you which portion of that 90% you can remove.

And this is something I'm going to translate word-for-word and send to her!

Great! Thanks loads!

[Rasmus]

I have been thinking a lot about what you said recently. We just got a new DVD about creation that is very interesting. It talks about ice, the complexity of water, that it's God's creation. When I see all that, I don't understand how you can believe that everything has evolved. That's not possible.

Now, I don't know what you have been telling her, but I fail to see how the complexity of water would be a reason to doubt evolution.

But I always thought that evolutiuon was just an incredibly simpel idea that seemed to be neccesarily true. Even if there has ever been an initial creation I fail to see how evolution could possibly be wrong: Replicators that produce less than 100% copies of themselves will evolve. They have to. There is no possible way how they could not.

The fact that we recover from illnesses, that we can smell, see and feel. How did that come to be if everything evolved?

Because of each of these traits carries an incredibly large survival benefit?

Moreover, how come we see colours, and not just black and white?

Because it makes it a lot easier to see stuff like apples and oranges and tigers and snickers bars and what not.

Our cells have been created to continue to reproduce themselves forever - why does that process suddenly stop?

I am no expert, but I think that out cells have not been evolved or designed to reproduce themselves forever. I think some of the mechanisms behind that are fairly well understood.

There is, i believe, a word for cells that reproduce forever and ever: cancer.

How come we use only 10 percent of our brain capacity during our lifetime? Doesn't that mean that we were made to live and learn forever?

It means she has been lied to. It is just not true that we only use 10% of our brains.

http://www.snopes.com/science/stats/10percent.asp

Even if it was true, it would only mean our brains had been designed for 1000 to 1500 years. A far cry from an eternity!

How does she think "brain capacity" is measured? There is hardly any agreement of what the IQ is or how it should best me measured, but what about a metric for the amount of things we can remember?

[stijndeloose]

Its properties come from its molecular structure, not from some divine power controlling it.

That's not going to help much, I'm afraid. It's a good point, but they'd argue that 'structure' does not exist without a creator.


Consider a race of proto-fish who have no brains or other sensory organs. They just drift along, hoping for the best. One day, a proto-fish is born whose genes, entirely through chance, have mutated in exactly the right way: it now sports a shiny new stripe on one side that acts as a primitive light-sensing organ - the distant ancestor of eyes.
Because this proto-fish can now see predators approaching, it can swim away, thereby saving itself. And, since it can more easily distinguish fish of its own kind, it has its pick of mates. So its genes are passed on; its children all have this light-sensing stripe.
Then one of the light-stripe-fish's children mates, then that fish's children mate, and so on and so on, until, hundreds of years later, a fish is born who not only has the light-stripe but also a pair of skin-patches which vibrate with changes in the ocean waters! This fish can hear! This makes it even easier to avoid predators, ensuring that this fish gets the chance to have babies as well. And its babies all have the proto-ears too!
And so on and so on.

This IS a good argument, and I do think I'm going to use it.

I also had a few things that I thought I'd ask her:

- If God has created every single "kind" of creature, why did it make it look as if they all evolved?
- If there was a flood, why did got remove all physical traces of it?
- Why did got create the HIV virus? Why did he create Ebola?
- Why did he stop performing miracles, or giving people the ability to perform them?

What do you think?

Thanks again!

S.

[Pixel42]

Actually the "10% of the brain" thing may be a good one to start with. It's an urban myth:

http://www.snopes.com/science/stats/10percent.asp

Ask her where she got that idea from, and why she accepted it without question. See if you can get her to consider whether all the other things she accepts without question might also not be as true as she assumes.

Good luck.

[Pure Argent]

- If God has created every single "kind" of creature, why did it make it look as if they all evolved?
- If there was a flood, why did got remove all physical traces of it?
- Why did got create the HIV virus? Why did he create Ebola?
- Why did he stop performing miracles, or giving people the ability to perform them?

My projected answers:

- To test our faith in His work.
- See #1.
- See #2.
- See #3.

It's an unbeatable argument if you run up against it, because there's simply no way to prove it false - they won't accept anything that could falsify it, at least in my experience.
And the "10% of the brain" thing is true, because the TechnoCore is using the other 90% to work on their Ultimate Intelligence project. Duh.

[stijndeloose]

Now, I don't know what you have been telling her, but I fail to see how the complexity of water would be a reason to doubt evolution.

Actually, I don't think she has any clear understanding of how evolution actually works. I wish I could get her to read one of Dawkins's books, or Coyne's "Why Evolution Is True", but alas...

Replicators that produce less than 100% copies of themselves will evolve. They have to. There is no possible way how they could not.

Very good argument! Thanks! Although, she'd argue that 'yes, there is variation. But one species does not turn into another'.


Because it makes it a lot easier to see stuff like apples and oranges and tigers and snickers bars and what not.

Or colour television! :D Thanks! Good point!


I am no expert, but I think that out cells have not been evolved or designed to reproduce themselves forever. I think some of the mechanisms behind that are fairly well understood.

I don't know, unfortunately. Will have to read up on that!

There is, i believe, a word for cells that reproduce forever and ever: cancer.

Do they? I guess cancer dies together with the body it parasitizes on.


It means she has been lied to. It is just not true that we only use 10% of our brains.

Oh!! Thanks so much for the link! I had been looking for it!

[stijndeloose]

Ask her where she got that idea from, and why she accepted it without question. See if you can get her to consider whether all the other things she accepts without question might also not be as true as she assumes.

Now THAT is a VERY good idea!! Exactly what I was looking for!

Thanks!

[Eyeron]

While I'm partial to second edition myself, I'm open to the first four editions, from Basic all the way to third. I won't touch fourth now because I'm simply tired of the game changing so much. Not to mention the costs of the books being around 35 to 50 dollars apiece now.

[Cainkane1]

Hi, all!

I'm in the middle of an e-mail discussion with a relative of mine who is one of Jehovah's Witnesses.

Her latest mail said the following (paraphrase + translation):

"I have been thinking a lot about what you said recently. We just got a new DVD about creation that is very interesting. It talks about ice, the complexity of water, that it's God's creation. When I see all that, I don't understand how you can believe that everything has evolved. That's not possible.

The fact that we recover from illnesses, that we can smell, see and feel. How did that come to be if everything evolved? Moreover, how come we see colours, and not just black and white? Our cells have been created to continue to reproduce themselves forever - why does that process suddenly stop? How come we use only 10 percent of our brain capacity during our lifetime? Doesn't that mean that we were made to live and learn forever?

I think these are things worth thinking about."

It's been a bit difficult to get through to her, and to get her to at least dare to question her own beliefs.

What would you all reply?

Thanks!

S.
You can't. They're beyond reason. A brief investigation into their absurd belief system shows that they cannot be reasoned with. Just shut the door in their face.

[Eyeron]

When you open the door and there's one there saying, "hello, I'm collecting for the Jehovah's witnesses...", interrupt them and say, "Great, I'm Jehovah. How much have we made so far?"

A chalk outline of a human body on the sidewalk, and a few copies of The Watchtower scattered around...

My mother (a second-generation atheist) used to say (in a very sweet voice): "I'm sorry, I don't give a damn about Jesus." Worked everytime. The Witnesses just backed off the porch in slack-jawed, bug-eyed disbelief.

Agreed, we are not prepared for this one, but it has to be carried off perfectly. The more sincere you appear, the more baffled the Witness will be: Answer the door with an automatic weapon and say "Allah be Praised!!!" and just see what happens.

Automatic weapons are undeniably the best deterrent to Witnesses. For extra effect, fire a few rounds into the air or towards their car. Pretend you hear a voice inside your head telling you to kill the witness. Guaranteed to stop future visits for several years.

The young couple came to my door. I was wearing my robe, and had just awakened. Now let me explain, I am a very unusual looking person anyway, but when I awake, I look like some kind of movie monster, I have hair all over everywhere. I made my eyes real piercing, and stared past them. I knew who they were, you can tell, they look so cute in their getup and their bland faces.Well the female one obviously is supposed to do the introduction because she sort of panicked, and said: "We're...we're...we're..we're....we're...." And then she stared helplessly at the other one and he said: "uh... uh.... uh... uh..."I then did a really fierce grin and stuck out my hand in a very fast gesture, and opened all my fingers, and in a voice sort of a mixture between Peter Lore and Lurch, I said: I... WILL... TAKE... YOUR... LITERATURE... AND... GIVE... IT... TO... MY... MASTER. The male one quickly handed me a copy of whatever rag they were peddling. they did not ask for a donation.They ran.It's a true story, and they never came back.

A friend claims that when Jehovah's Witlesses knock on her door, her first response is to ask for their address. When they ask why she wants to know, she says it is so she can visit them to push her beliefs. So far, none of them have given their address. It also marks the end of the interview. SLAM!

A guy goes up to my friend's friend and asks, "Can I talk to you about God?" She says, "Sure, what would you like to know?"

JW ladies come to the door. One of them has small child in tow. Interrupts SIW's dinner. If you knew SIW like I knew SIW, you wouldn't do that. SIW: Thank you, but I already have a religion. JW: May I ask what it is? SIW: I'd really rather not say. {Pregnant pause} I'm not sure if it's legal in this country. Supposedly they gave her a real strange look on their way back down the stairs.

answer the door with a bloody knife and say, "I'm sorry, could you come back in a half hour? We're not done with the virgin yet."


From:

http://www.keegan.org/jeff/humor/jehovah.html

[stijndeloose]

A brief investigation into their absurd belief system shows that they cannot be reasoned with. Just shut the door in their face.

Their belief system makes sense as long as you believe all of it and never question anything.

And I can't shut the door in my sister's face. I or won't. :)

[Marduk]

Their belief system makes sense as long as you believe all of it and never question anything.
on what planet ?

And I can't shut the door in my sister's face. I or won't. :)

oh hey if its your sister then its no problem, sooner or later she will be advised to sever any ties with non believers in order to make the entire group more pure in the eyes of the lord and you won't have to worry about it any more

;)

[stijndeloose]

oh hey if its your sister then its no problem, sooner or later she will be advised to sever any ties with non believers in order to make the entire group more pure in the eyes of the lord and you won't have to worry about it any more

;)

True, unfortunately. Would love to get her to think, though. I sorta feel sorry for her.

S.

[Pure Argent]

Eyeron, I would just like to say that you win.

Forever.

:clap:

[Marduk]

True, unfortunately. Would love to get her to think, though. I sorta feel sorry for her.

S.

how did she get involved with the JW in the first place ?

[stijndeloose]

on what planet ?

Theirs! :D

[Rasmus]

German, with subtitles, bad video
oIIfwzzZV_c

Just the video, no subtitles, better qaulity
54rN7sTyaiI

[stijndeloose]

Ok... Here's a little update (though I'm under the impression my discussion with her will not lead to anything):

Me: Why did God create viruses?
She: We are imperfect because Adam and Eve sinned. The farther off from them we are, the more we are imperfect.

Me: Why did God erase all traces of the flood?
She: There's traces enough: instantly frozen annimals, earthlayers. Traces of ice ages and the flood are identical. Ice ages are just another explanation for atheists.

Me: Why does God no longer have people perform miracles?
She: Because we now have the bible, and they didn't have that back then.

She: I don't understand how you can see things like the complexity of water and still believe everything has evolved!
Me: Explain radiowaves. The fact that I cannot explain everything, does not mean there is a God. People used to think God caused thunder. Because of science, we now know otherwise.
She: Radiowaves are invisible vibrations in the universe. Something very natural.

She: Genetic mutations are never permanent. Without help mutations are impossible. Darwin proved the survival of the strongest [sic], but not speciation.

I asked where she got the information that we use only 10 percent of our brains. Her reply was: Scientificly proven!

I did not tell her about the "10 percent of the brain" myth yet. Will do so shortly!

I'm starting to understand why Dawkins refuses to participate in formal debates with creationists!

S.

[stijndeloose]

how did she get involved with the JW in the first place ?

My parents have been Jehovah's Witnesses for 23 years, since I was 6. My sister has been one all her life.

I left 9 years ago.

S.

[Pure Argent]

Ok... Here's a little update (though I'm under the impression my discussion with her will not lead to anything):

Me: Why did God create viruses?
She: We are imperfect because Adam and Eve sinned. The farther off from them we are, the more we are imperfect.

Explain to her the following points:
- The Garden of Eden is a pile of crap, pure and simple. It is physically impossible for the entire race of humankind to have descended from two people who could, technically, be considered brother and sister, since one was made from the bone of the other. Especially when they had four sons and no daughters.
- Explain to her the beaten-wife syndrome: an abused wife is convinced that the beatings are her fault, and that if she does better they will stop. Therefore she stays in the relationship.
- Adam and Eve couldn't have known they were sinning. The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil contained the... well, the Knowledge of Good and Evil. God couldn't have explained to them that eating the apple was wrong, since they didn't know what "wrong" was until they ate it. So either Adam and Eve were not to blame or the story is false.

Me: Why did God erase all traces of the flood?
She: There's traces enough: instantly frozen annimals, earthlayers. Traces of ice ages and the flood are identical. Ice ages are just another explanation for atheists.

This is pure idiocy on her part. A flood and an ice age would not leave even close to the same stuff behind. The ice age leaves ice. A flood would leave... mud, I guess, and silt. I'm no geologist, but even I know that this is crap.
And there are no "instantly frozen animals" anywhere. The animals in question were frozen over time. At least, I think there aren't, but again I'm no geologist. Maybe somebody like Tricky could help you out.
Tell her that the rationalization she has come up with is "just another explanation for theists."

Me: Why does God no longer have people perform miracles?
She: Because we now have the bible, and they didn't have that back then.

Why would having the Bible prevent God from performing miracles?

She: I don't understand how you can see things like the complexity of water and still believe everything has evolved!
Me: Explain radiowaves. The fact that I cannot explain everything, does not mean there is a God. People used to think God caused thunder. Because of science, we now know otherwise.
She: Radiowaves are invisible vibrations in the universe. Something very natural.

Radio waves are not "invisible vibrations in the universe." They are emissions of electromagnetic force. And how are they "something very natural" if they were created by an outside force?

She: Genetic mutations are never permanent. Without help mutations are impossible. Darwin proved the survival of the strongest [sic], but not speciation.

BS. Genetic mutations are permanent as long as the organisms that possess them survive. A genetic mutation doesn't disappear two minutes after it arrives. Ask her exactly what she means when she says that they aren't permanent, because it has been shown in many scientific experiments that they very much are.
And "survival of the fittest" is, for all intents and purposes, speciation. What survival of the fittest comes down to is that the animals with environmentally favorable genetic mutations survive to pass those mutations on to their offspring. As the offspring breed, the mutations slowly add up.

I asked where she got the information that we use only 10 percent of our brains. Her reply was: Scientificly proven!

Ask for her source. If she can't give it, break the "myth" thing to her. If she gives it, debunk it.

I did not tell her about the "10 percent of the brain" myth yet. Will do so shortly!

By all means, do.

I'm starting to understand why Dawkins refuses to participate in formal debates with creationists!

Welcome to our world, buddy.

S.

But I still don't think you'll make any headway.

EDIT: Oh, and explain to her that WATER AND RADIO WAVES DID NOT EVOLVE. The theory of evolution applies only to living things, not to nonliving matter - or electromagnetic radiation.

[stijndeloose]

Thanks!

I already replied to her, and a lot of my replies are very close to yours.

Problem is: reasoning just does not work with these people. They don't take arguments. And they trust science only when it supports their beliefs.

Meh!

Been gone from JWs for 9 years now, and for sound reasons (obviously), but this is my first decent discussion with some-one in my family. Not an easy task!

Thanks again!

[Fizzer]

As for the 10% brain use, I'm thinking she's just passing along the urban myth, this is not something taught by Jehovah's Witnesses.


I have never understood how anyone could doubt evolution. Look around you, all the food that you eat, every domesticated animal, every hybrid rose or rhubarb plant or house cat or (dare I mention it) banana has been tinkered with by people. We "evolved" plants and animals to suit our needs. We have "selected" for traits that we prefer. How could nature, if left to her own devices, not be able to do so as well? The fossil record, superbugs, and the vast cacophony of related life on the planet all seem to point in one direction, in my opinion. I'll bet you a donut, though, that you have no more chance of convincing her then you do of suddenly springing from bed one early morning and taking it into your head to go off, tracts in hand, to ring doorbells and be yelled at by angry sleeper-inners.

The JW view of creation is not so cut and dry, but allows for much natural variation and adaptation of living things, much like man-made hybrids and variations you mention.



Well, here's what I'd say. Keep in mind, none of this is particularly deep thinking. And you have absolutely no chance of making headway against ground-in religion.
...
Consider a race of proto-fish who have no brains or other sensory organs.

Well, the question there would be: Where did the proto-fish come from?



My projected answers:

- To test our faith in His work.
- See #1.
- See #2.
- See #3.

It's an unbeatable argument if you run up against it, because there's simply no way to prove it false - they won't accept anything that could falsify it, at least in my experience.

Jehovah's Witness are unlikely to give that answer. The view that God put malicious things around (Ebola, etc.) as a test of faith is not something that's part of JW belief system. And they would be viewed as something created by God directly, but variations and adaptations of other viruses (see comment above regarding that).

As for the lack of miracles or people who can perform them, the Bible says those gifts would end.

[Marduk]

My parents have been Jehovah's Witnesses for 23 years, since I was 6. My sister has been one all her life.

I left 9 years ago.

S.
oooh so youre actually unclean in their eyes, I applaud you for having the sense to leave, and I also applaud your sister for having the balls to talk to you. if you want to know the best way to get through to her, explain to her why your life in the JW was wrong and why your new path is right. But really, shouldn't you be letting her figure that stuff out for herself anyway ?
isn't she entitled to use her own free will to decide what way to spend her life ?
isn't that what lifes for, to make your own decisions about how to lead it

if your new path isn't right then go back to the JW, sometimes some people need more than reality to feel comfortabe with themselves and thats what organised religion is for. I don't see anything wrong with that until they start strapping dynamite to themselves

[stijndeloose]

And there are no "instantly frozen animals" anywhere. The animals in question were frozen over time. At least, I think there aren't, but again I'm no geologist.

True. I wonder if my sister still believes the 'edible mammoth' crap...

S.

[Pure Argent]

Well, the question there would be: Where did the proto-fish come from?

One of the most elusive answers of science. But I believe that the current theory runs something like this:

1) Earth is created, originally a ball of molten metal and rock.
2) Time passes, and earth is eventually covered with water. Or mostly, anyway.
3) Proteins in the water react with energy (lightning, sunlight, thermal heat, whatev') and become the first single-cell organisms.
4) Over time, these single-cell organisms evolve, eventually becoming the above proto-fish via way of looking something like a cross between a squid and a dolphin for a few thousand years.

On the other hand, how exactly the protein soup came to be living matter instead of disparate molecules is one of the great unanswered questions of science, and one we can't answer right now. Or maybe there's been some big breakthrough since last I checked, I dunno. But the point is, proteins->amoebas->squid-thing->proto-fish->actual fish->stuff->humans->???->profit!

[Pure Argent]

oooh so youre actually unclean in their eyes, I applaud you for having the sense to leave, and I also applaud your sister for having the balls to talk to you.

There is something medically wrong with this family.

[stijndeloose]

oooh so youre actually unclean in their eyes,

Err... sorta. I haven't been shunned or anything (yet). I used to just shut up, but since they never stop talking about their beliefs, I thought it was time to speak up.

I applaud you for having the sense to leave, and I also applaud your sister for having the balls to talk to you.

Me too. Glad she still is, after 5 e-mails or so. I'm surprised, actually

But really, shouldn't you be letting her figure that stuff out for herself anyway ?
isn't she entitled to use her own free will to decide what way to spend her life ?
isn't that what lifes for, to make your own decisions about how to lead it

Yep. But since she's always been one of them, and never has serious talks with non-JWs, I doubt that's going to happen. Not because she's stupid (she's not), but because 'independent thinking' is a no-no for JWs.

if your new path isn't right then go back to the JW.

Hey, come on! Be serious! :D

[Pure Argent]

So how often does your sister email you? Is this a one-a-day thing, or is it closer to a real-time conversation?

[Wowbagger]

We know the concepts of evolution are most likely true, because they help us solve problems. See here for lots of examples: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/search/topicbrowse2.php?topic_id=47

Assuming everything was created seems to get you nowhere. At least not when someone has the responsability to help fight disease, or save endangered animals, etc.

How come humans studying evolution are saving so many lives, and not the beliefs coming out of churhes?

[stijndeloose]

Err... I guess we're at an average of 1 e-mails every 2-3 days or so. It's been going on for about a week and a half.

[Pure Argent]

Okay. Just wondering how much time I had to come up with arguments between emails.

I'll help you as much as I can during this thing, but my connection is spotty, so that's why I was asking.

[stijndeloose]

How come humans studying evolution are saving so many lives, and not the beliefs coming out of churhes?

Good questions, although they'd probably say: "Yeah, but we are saving lives for eternity, and you're just extending them for a few years."

Which is why logic does not work with 'em.

[Marduk]

Yep. But since she's always been one of them, and never has serious talks with non-JWs, I doubt that's going to happen. Not because she's stupid (she's not), but because 'independent thinking' is a no-no for JWs.

okay so you have your answer, you allow her to realise that its not for her the same way that you did (I don't know the method but the advice is sound)
and if she decides that free will and reality is not for her, then you'll have to respect that. You have a different perspective on life is all, you shouldn't be trying to push yours on her......


and I wonder why you do,


people like other people who are the same as them, but we love other people because they're different
(this does not apply to Joobz)

[Pure Argent]

Logic doesn't work on religious beliefs because logic was not the reason that they came to hold these beliefs.

Anyway, leaving now. Lemme know when she responds. This is pretty interesting stuff.

Good luck! :wave1

[stijndeloose]

I'll help you as much as I can during this thing, but my connection is spotty, so that's why I was asking.

Thanks! Although it doesn't feel like I'm making any progress. I'm under the impression she doesn't even open my links...

But thanks a lot. I appreciate it!

[stijndeloose]

and I wonder why you do

I don't. But I am willing to reply to her questions.

It started off a bit differently: my mother send me a message asking me (as she does almost constantly) to read a text from the bible. So I said: ok, if you read "The God Delusion".

She didn't, but I got a sms from my sister a few days later.

Off now. Will keep this thread updated!

Thanks to all!

[Wowbagger]

Good questions, although they'd probably say: "Yeah, but we are saving lives for eternity, and you're just extending them for a few years." That, at least, is an admission that evolution works. It's kinda hard to argue that something isn't true, when it seems to be making such an impact on all of our (current) lives, all the time.

If the Mormon is confused about how evolution works. Here is what you can do:

1. First you can inform her to "forget" everything she already thinks she knows about it. Chances are, it was all "strawman" drivel.

Using religious material to learn about evolution is a lot like using a Mr. Potato Head to learn about anatomy. It's jsut not the most accurate resource you can turn to.

(This is a crucial step, because it helps encourage her to broaden her mind, if done the right way.)

2. Show her some beginner's material on the science of Evolution. One good site is this one: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/

3. This is also surprisingly imporant, because it helps build confidence in the person, even if you don't believe it, yourself: Remind her that Evolution does NOT necessarily have to conflict with her beliefs. She can still have faith in God, if she wants to. But, now she will hopefully understand why the concepts of evolution are so useful to scientists, a little better. And, she can still be a kind, caring, and peace-loving person, even after all that!

Make a pact: You won't step on her God. And, she won't step on science education in school.


Before you embark on all those steps, you might also want to read some books on deprogramming cult members. Not all of it applies to Mormons, of course, but it will get you better acquainted with the more... diplomatic... methods of psychology.

You can't just destroy someone's world, without first presenting them with a better one to live on.

[Barsdamian]

Very interesting thread here.

It is particularly tough to talk to JWs who have been raised in the religion as their logic skills may have never fully developed. I can remember my parents cautioning me that what I learned in school might conflict with what we know to be true and that's only because my teachers and any non-JW were in the grip of Satan's system.

When they speak the dialog goes only one direction. They are only speaking to convince you of the folly of your ways. When you attempt to challenge any point they either ignore you or retreat to the safety of their flock. If your sister is going to leave, the impetus must come from within.

By all means, continue to speak to her but also realize that change may take years and never come at all. Ultimately, as Marduk has pointed out, it up to her what to do with her life and some people prefer comforting delusion to cold, hard reality.

Best of luck.

[vIQleS]

Actually, I don't think she has any clear understanding of how evolution actually works. I wish I could get her to read one of Dawkins's books, or Coyne's "Why Evolution Is True", but alas...


Youtube.

I can't do this from work, but I think extantdodo has some good evolution videos. zomgitscriss has at least a few (I haven't watched them all yet), try and get her to watch the "...made easy" series by potholer54...

[Robert Oz]

Hi, all!

I'm in the middle of an e-mail discussion with a relative of mine who is one of Jehovah's Witnesses.

Her latest mail said the following (paraphrase + translation):

"I have been thinking a lot about what you said recently. We just got a new DVD about creation that is very interesting. It talks about ice, the complexity of water, that it's God's creation. When I see all that, I don't understand how you can believe that everything has evolved. That's not possible.


Seeing the complexity of the world we live in can boggle the mind, but being unable to explain it personally is no reason to assume a creator. If aspects of the universe we live in are mind boggling, surely God would be even more so. Does that mean we need a creator of the creator? And then a creator of the creator of the creator?

Ignorance of a subject is not a reason to invoke a magical being to explain it away. Before mankind understood the workings of the solar system, it assumed the sun was a god. This is just as non-sensical as saying 'water complex, therefore God'.


The fact that we recover from illnesses, that we can smell, see and feel. How did that come to be if everything evolved?


These examples make perfect sense in light of evolution. Recovery from illnesses, smell, sight and touch would all significantly increase the chances of survival of a living thing. Mutations relating to the emergence or improvement of any of these would be favoured by natural selection and, therefore, spread throughout the population.

If we attribute recovery from illness to God, then God must also be responsible for illnesses from which we recover and for illnesses from which we are unable to recover. Terminal illnesses make sense in a universe without a conscious, intelligent, benevolent guiding hand. And recovery from terminal illnesses make sense through natural selection.

If a virus kills a human being, either God deliberately created the killing agent, or the virus is trying to survive and replicate as much as any other living thing in the universe - unfortunately it is to our detriment.


Moreover, how come we see colours, and not just black and white?


Seeing in colour increased our chances for survival. If seeing in colour was a gift from God, then surely God places the eagle far above us in importance, since our sight doesn't hold a candle to an eagle's. In light of evolution, however, of course the eagle can see better then us, since it hunts its prey from very high up. Acute vision would increase its chances of survival.


Our cells have been created to continue to reproduce themselves forever - why does that process suddenly stop?


It doesn't always suddenly stop. When it doesn't stop, it is called cancer. Again, if cancer is not an unfortunate natural occurence, then God is giving people cancer deliberately. That is not the sign of a benevolent deity.


How come we use only 10 percent of our brain capacity during our lifetime? Doesn't that mean that we were made to live and learn forever?


That is a myth. We use all of our brain. Any source that would discuss this myth as fact, I would consider dubious.


I think these are things worth thinking about.


They are indeed, because they support evolution and raise important problems for creationists to solve.

[Tumbleweed]

HOW TO AVOID JEHOVAH WITNESSESS in Ten Easy Steps
This how to was meant to be in a humorous vein. It is not meant to be a put down, but merely as an obsevation of the American Scene. I realize that any humor is bound to offend, BUT SOME PEOPLE NEED TO LIGHTEN UP
1. Answer the door naked! ( won't work with Nudist Jehovahs)
2.Have bratty kids who taunt EVERYBODY (doesn't work with Exorcist Jehovahs)
3 Squirt bacon odor on yourself and say, "oops I'm cooking breakfast!" when you answer the door. ( doesn't work with Hungry Jehovahs who ask if you are your Brother's Keeper)
4. Quickly agree to everything that say to avoid any debate. Yep, yep, goodbye, nothing left to say, have a nice day! ( Doesn't work with Contrarian Jehovahs or On and On and On Jehovahs)
5. Erect a large Buddha staute on your property. Or have Allah Akabar shouted out when the doorbell is rung ( doesn't work with Crusading Jehovahs or if you want to keep your other Christian friends)
6. A moat with a code word for the drawbridge
7. When Jehovah Sue finally cracks the moat code and comes a-knocking tell her Jehovah Bob has you covered - and vice versa! ( you won't go to hell for a little white lie, will you?)
8. Run past them with a fake bloody cat while yelling, " sorry I gotta get to the vet!!" ( well, you MIGHT go to hell for that one)
9. Be really really quiet and crouch behind the couch ( doesn't work with Persistent Jehovahs who KNOW you are home because your car is in the driveway)
10 Have a nasty barking dog! (won't work with Dog Whisperer Jehovahs)
So in conclusion it is impossible to keep them ALL away, but implementing the above tactics should weed them out a bit. Perhaps we can get a Renegade Jehovah to fill us in as to what he has seen in practice out in the field - what works and what doesn't

[Foolmewunz]

The only way to reason with a dedicated JW, by their standards which are their overwhelming guiding force, of course, is to agree with them.

As a number of insiders will point out, their critical thinking skills are not just malfunctioning, they've never actually been turned on. A dyed in the wool JW has been raised to not think critically or question anything in their dogma. And since their dogma consists of not just religious issues but also of lifestyle and personal issues, that pretty much means they've got a canned answer ready.

[Robert Oz]

Replicators that produce less than 100% copies of themselves will evolve. They have to. There is no possible way how they could not.

Very good argument! Thanks! Although, she'd argue that 'yes, there is variation. But one species does not turn into another'.


For evolution within a species to be true, but speciation to be false, random mutations would have to be limited to segments of DNA that, when altered, retain the key properties of the species.

This would be somewhat akin to the following exercise:

1. The entire bible is transcribed on a daily basis (ignoring time constraints for this example). Some transcription errors make it into the duplicate copy, but the errors are minor enough to make the bible readable (e.g. reading 'Jisus' would be understood by most readers to actually be 'Jesus'). This can be likened to variations within a species.

2. The duplicate copy is then copied, and the next copy is copied and so on, but the errors are copied as well. There is no correction made by the next transcriber. Of course, in evolution, nature does make correction when a mutation is detrimental to survival, but in this example, there is no survival benefit. This is done for 100,000 years (i.e. 36.5 million copies).

3. Arguing that speciation is impossible, is like arguing that even after 36.5 million copies of the bible the errors in 'Jesus' would somehow be limited to words that are still recognisable as 'Jesus'. That is, after 36.5 million copies, 'Jisus', 'Jaesus', 'Jeses' and 'Jaizes' are possible errors, but 'Robus', 'Stenus' and 'Gerry' are impossible.

Of course, your sister may come back with the argument that mutations can never be beneficial, and must always be detrimental, but this argument falls apart, since she has already accepted variation within a species meaning mutations can result in faster, stronger or smarter members within a species.

[Egg]

It started off a bit differently: my mother send me a message asking me (as she does almost constantly) to read a text from the bible. So I said: ok, if you read "The God Delusion".

She didn't, but I got a sms from my sister a few days later.

I don't buy the "can't reason someone out of something they didn't use reason to get into". It sounds from her answers that in many cases there is reason behind them, but often based on ignorance or misinformation. Her appeal to science on the 10% of the brain thing suggests that she would accept a well presented scientific argument that she could trust.

I would stay away from Dawkins. Even though he has some great evolution writings and presentations, his attacks on religion are well known and could throw doubt on his motives and therefore his arguments- particularly if you're selecting The God Delusion - it would probably mostly be seen as offensive.

You're not going to be able to prove the non-existence of God scientifically, so as Wowbagger suggests, stick to solid scientific ground.

I would suggest the Francis Collins book, The Language of God. Collins (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Collins_%28geneticist%29) is a Christian and headed up the human genome project. He presents a theist friendly approach to the theory of evolution based on DNA evidence. It's more of a book demonstrating how evolution and religion need not be at loggerheads.

[Leviath]

I would be careful not to offend your sister, that will only confirm to her what the JW teach about "evil" ex-JWs like yourself. You probably can't reason her out of the creationist BS either. But by keeping the discussion civil and "sciency" she will have one less reason to cut you off. Perhaps over time she will realise that doubting creationism doesn't make you a bad person.

You could even throw in some questions about how her life/family/work is at the end of a few e-mails. For some reason being nice to people seem to confuse them a lot when you are in a disagreement of this magnitude.

[stijndeloose]

Hi, all!

Thanks for your imput!

Let me first say that for Jehovah's Witnesses, evolution IS IRRECONCILABLE with their beliefs. They're not young earth creationists, but they are close: they do believe the earth is older than 6000 years (they take the 'days' in Genesis to be figurative< 'eras'), but they also believe than man was created slightly over 6000 years ago (6034 to be exact), that the flood actually happened, etc.

I wouldn't say Jehovah's Witnesses don't learn how to think logically. I think they do. But they don't really learn how to think critically. At least as far as their own beliefs are concerned.

Still, Egg - you are probably right that I'd better stay away from Dawkins. He is indeed a bit too critical towards religion. And I don't think being an atheist necessarily means being anti-religious. Thanks, Egg! I'll check up on Francis Collins.

And, Leviath, of course I'm trying not to offend my sister. And I do, obviously, throw in questions about life, family, works etc. It's a narrow line to walk though, as the very idea of evolution may already offence to Jehovah's Witnesses.

Thanks again!

S.

[stijndeloose]

Hello, Wowbagger, and thanks!

Make a pact: You won't step on her God. And, she won't step on science education in school.

It's very difficult not to step on her God. There's so much in science that is in direct conflict with their beliefs. They take the Genesis story of creation pretty literally (except for the word 'days'), they take the global deluge to be an established historical fact, they believe the walls of Jericho were really distroyed by God, they believe all the miracles in the bible really happened.

You can't just destroy someone's world, without first presenting them with a better one to live on.

Now that's a tough one. They're living in a wonderful illusion. What could be better than eternal life on a paradise earth?

BTW, They're Jehovah's Witnesses, not Mormons!

Thanks again!

S.

[Rasmus]

You can't just destroy someone's world, without first presenting them with a better one to live on.

Then scepticism is doomed.

We do not promise a better world, and I am not looking for a "better" world, primarily, either.

I am looking for the truth and think that scepticism is the only reliable way to get there (or at least as close as we can.)

[pakeha]

Thanks to all for a fascinating thread.
How do the 6,000 year old humanity folk deal with the findings of 12,000 year old pottery?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceramic_art
And the findings at Atapuerca?

[stijndeloose]

How do the 6,000 year old humanity folk deal with the findings of 12,000 year old pottery?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceramic_art
And the findings at Atapuerca?

Easily: they'd say the dating methods are unreliable. Until a dated artifact confirms something that's mentioned in the bible, of course.

Meh.

[Ocelot]

This would be my answer....

Hi, all!

I'm in the middle of an e-mail discussion with a relative of mine who is one of Jehovah's Witnesses.

Her latest mail said the following (paraphrase + translation):

"I have been thinking a lot about what you said recently. We just got a new DVD about creation that is very interesting. It talks about ice, the complexity of water, that it's God's creation. When I see all that, I don't understand how you can believe that everything has evolved. That's not possible.

The fact that we recover from illnesses, that we can smell, see and feel. How did that come to be if everything evolved? Moreover, how come we see colours, and not just black and white? Our cells have been created to continue to reproduce themselves forever - why does that process suddenly stop? How come we use only 10 percent of our brain capacity during our lifetime? Doesn't that mean that we were made to live and learn forever?

I think these are things worth thinking about."

It's been a bit difficult to get through to her, and to get her to at least dare to question her own beliefs.

What would you all reply?

Thanks!

S.

I too find the properties of water fascinating. It's the only compound found naturally in all three phases. Most materials become more dense as the get colder and freeze, but liquid water at one degree Celsius is less dense that water at 4 degrees Celsius, ice is less dense that water. This means that convection is reversed in freezing water, keeping a layer of relatively warm liquid water beneath the ice. The curious mind would want to know why this is. That God might have made it to be that way could only ever be part of the explanation. Maybe it is enough to satisfy the less inquisitive. I'm more interested to find out that it is because of a process called rafting where the polar water molecule starts to bond together to form loose crystals. Knowing this doesn't depreciate from the awe and wonder I find in the beautiful crystalline structures seen in frost and ice. It only adds a level in which I can appreciate it.

You may believe that water is so amazing because it is Gods creation, and indeed I'm sure that believing this adds a level in which you can appreciate the wonders of H2O yet it is certainly not necessary to believe in God in order to appreciate water or why it has these astounding properties. Muslims, Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus and the non-religious are all privy to the secrets of nature, none of which seem to find the existence of any particular theology a necessity.

It may seem to you that things of intricate beauty can only come about by the cause of some clever being but if that's what you believe then it can only be that you've not seen the beauty inherent in mathematics.

You see there's no point in discussing a God that isn't bound by logic and reason. We would not be able to say any more than your God makes no sense – you believe in non-sense and I don’t. Whilst some do take this stance and force this impasse most acknowledge that even God is bound by logic and by implication mathematics.

Euler’s identity cannot help but be true. Even God cannot stop 2+2 from equalling 4 or eip from equalling 0. Look at a mini universe created by the application of John Conway's Game of Life. If you don't already know about this, look it up. It's truly enlightening. Fill it with random patterns and see beauty structure and all the apparent hallmarks of designed life emerge. Yet we didn't do any design we didn't choose to create life. All we did was set the parameters of a two dimensional grid of discrete points which would be either on or off influencing the state of the next generation through 4 basic rules. It just mathematics it's outside of Gods' domain to influence the result as much as it's outside of ours.

Surely it’s not impossible then that the rules of nature were set in place, either by an efficient God who need take no further direct part in the universe or by some other unknown process and all the beauties of the world simply emerged through mechanisms we’re privileged to be able to understand.

It is not only possible that everything evolved, it is overwhelmingly likely. Either that or mountains upon mountains of independent evidence needs to have another explanation.

The same DNA evidence that tells us that Angel Iris Murphy Brown is closely related to Eddie Murphy tells us that the entire Human Race is more distantly related to chimpanzees. Such DNA testing builds a phylogenetic tree of life which largely confirms (with minor revisions) that built up from more primitive methods.

The evolution of new species by natural selection has been observed in the wild and recreated in the lab.

What's more, since it's an argument you bring up, the genes associated with colour vision and colour blindness lend further strong evidence of evolution through natural selection, in the genes which code for opsins. This appears to have happened in different ways in multiple mammal species.

Also our cells are unfortunately not designed to be able to reproduce forever. Each chromosome is capped by a number of telomeres. Each time the cell reproduces a telomere is lost from the end. This limits the number of times a cell can reproduce.

If anyone has told you otherwise I encourage you to research the truth through independent means and decide for yourself. There’s no shortage of scientists who are practising God fearing Christians and accept evolution as the method by which we came about. They simply have faith that God’s guiding hand was in there somewhere.

Personally I find that actually understanding the answers to these questions is far more rewarding that pretending that the answers are not known, simply in order to increase a need for a God to fill the gaps in our knowledge. Surely belief in God must be about faith. It should be something you simply feel to be true, something that shouldn’t be threatened by observing other people live good productive happy and healthy lives without that belief, something that isn’t threatened when those gaps in our knowledge are filled or we find that they were filled a long time ago. Basing your belief in such shady evidence in opposition to reality is likely to lead to a crisis of faith. If your faith comes from something within, then that’s one thing, you can understand it’s something I don’t have despite having been open to it as a child. However if the only reason you believe is because dishonest people have been lying to you about the state of scientific knowledge then that offends me.

[ToddH]

I had one pull into my driveway while I was in my garage working on a project one Sunday afternoon. As soon as he got out of his car I held up my circular saw, gave the button a couple of presses, and shook my head no. It didn't take long for him to hop back in his car and leave.

I've found the best technique for dealing with them is never open the door. I always ask who it is with the door closed. As soon as they start their spiel I tell them to get off my property before I call the cops, never opening the door. Works every time.

[stijndeloose]

Thanks, Ocelot! Lots of useful information to pass on (and to read for myself!).

I'd never read about telomeres. And the Game of Life is ACE!

Thanks!

S.

[Pure Argent]

You may also ask her if she has ever really used critical thinking and logic when considering religion. Many people are just unwilling to.

[Ocelot]

And the Game of Life is ACE!


That's just one example of Cellular Automata. You get hooked on that stuff and there's no coming back.

http://xkcd.com/505/

[The Greater Fool]

You won't win this "high level" discussions. JWs are taught "caricatures" (aka strawmen) of the scientific view, then rebutt that. Your sister is not going to any other source then Society Publications.

Take one topic (any topic), and agree to both research all sides of the topic. The overwhelming evidence will be on the science side, and each of the society arguments will get REAL rebuttals, not strawmen.

One topic may not be convincing, but it will chip a little away. Then, go to another topic.

Certainly, Witnesses are not given accurate presentations on what evolution really asserts, nor the evidence for it, even though they are told they are being given accurate information.

[Wowbagger]

BTW, They're Jehovah's Witnesses, not Mormons!Oh, right. Sorry.

It's very difficult not to step on her God. There's so much in science that is in direct conflict with their beliefs. It might be hard work sorting the philosophical from the science, especially if their view of historic events is distorted. But, the process can begin, at least, in the field of life's origins.

One could, in principal, have faith that God created life, while simultaneously accepting the scientific explanations as a useful model to work with.

Evolutionary thinking might have its own ideas about how life got started (more often found in the sciences of abiogenesis), but even if their studies are useful for making discoveries and solving problems, that does not necessarily mean they must be ultimately correct!

Maybe God really is at work, but science is too weak to find him. Who knows? Remind them of that.


Now that's a tough one. They're living in a wonderful illusion. What could be better than eternal life on a paradise earth? The transition does not need to be sudden. They can move in, slowly, if at all.

One can train themselves to accept the findings of science, while simultaneously believing in an afterlife. Maybe they will eventually let go of that, too. But, it is important to let them move in at their own pace.

Your job is not to move them. Your job is to just show them the new "home". How far they move in, or not, is up to them.

Even if they hardly budge, you might get them off the backs of science classrooms, anyway, once they somewhat understand the value of science.

Then scepticism is doomed.

We do not promise a better world, and I am not looking for a "better" world, primarily, either. In a sense, you are correct: We do not promise anything. However...

I am looking for the truth and think that scepticism is the only reliable way to get there (or at least as close as we can.) ...if we can help show the value of this mentality, the person might voluntarily choose join in.

Difficult to Achieve: Yes.
Impossible: Not necessarily.
There are many folks, even among active skeptics, who successfully gotten themselves out of cults, creationism, and truther movements, etc.

Perhaps "worldview" would have been a better word that "world".

[stijndeloose]

Take one topic (any topic), and agree to both research all sides of the topic. The overwhelming evidence will be on the science side, and each of the society arguments will get REAL rebuttals, not strawmen.

Which is exactly the problem: I sent this link to my sister - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o92x6AvxCFg. Her reaction was (paraphrase): "Yeah, but that's easy. You just take a bunch of fossils from various place it make it look like it's an evolutionary chain."

Certainly, Witnesses are not given accurate presentations on what evolution really asserts, nor the evidence for it, even though they are told they are being given accurate information.

Second that. Hey, at least I got her to read a few things that were not provided by the "Society", which is something they do not often do. Maybe some progress is being made after all!

S.

[stijndeloose]

There are many folks, even among active skeptics, who successfully gotten themselves out of cults, creationism, and truther movements, etc.

I'm living evidence that that is actually possible.

Thanks for the advice!!

S.

[The Greater Fool]

Which is exactly the problem: I sent this link to my sister - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o92x6AvxCFg. Her reaction was (paraphrase): "Yeah, but that's easy. You just take a bunch of fossils from various place it make it look like it's an evolutionary chain."
And you accepted that? You need to show her some of the plentiful examples where this isn't what happenned... that very often there are whole / complete fossils.

You aren't going to get anywhere accepting her off the cuff responses as fact. She can't prove her case, you can (with a little effort).

[stijndeloose]

And you accepted that?

No. I just mentioned it to show what the discussion is like.

You need to show her some of the plentiful examples where this isn't what happenned... that very often there are whole / complete fossils.

I did in my reply to her.

You aren't going to get anywhere accepting her off the cuff responses as fact. She can't prove her case, you can (with a little effort).

Hey, I don't accept them! Just keeping you updated on the discussion. And I'm working on proving my case. :) That sure is going to take more than a few days!!

Thanks!

[Ocelot]

"Yeah, but that's easy. You just take a bunch of fossils from various place it make it look like it's an evolutionary chain."

The point is that it is easy. If there's wasn't any evolutionary chain to begin with then finding fossils which appears to fit an evolutionary chain would be hard.

What would be even harder would be to find the appearance of an evolutionary chain from the fossil evidence and then decades later have the rbanching and the dates confirmed by independant DNA testing.

In fact I'd go as far as to say that the odds of this happened by chance are astronomical, and it simply can't happen by deciet alone.

[Ocelot]

OK here's how we present the argument.

If an evolutionary chain is easy to fake lets prove that by trying to fake one.

There exists an evolutionary chain to suggest that the modern Horse is descended from a creature we call Hyracotherium 55 million years ago.

Hyracotherium has many descendents throught the ages branching around 35 million years ago to produce the north american megahippus which has been an extinct line for over 10 million years. It's contemporary pilohippus is the "grandfather" to both our modern horse and another more recently extinct line Hippidon.

However lets say instead that pilohippus isn't the ancestor of the modern horse but instead lets bestow that honour upon megahippus. Can we construct an equally convincing evolutionary chain from that to the modern horse?

Here's some source material to start working with.

http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fhc/Stratmap1.htm

The answer, I think you'll find, is no we can't. The chain from pilohippus to modern horse is more convincing. Why might that be?

[stijndeloose]

GREAT!!!

THANKS!!!

Oh, and errr... STOP SYLVIA BROWNE!!

[Patsy]

No one, not even family gets to talk to me about Christianity unless they are willing to pass my believers test, as supported by Mark 16:17-18. I'm not an expert on devils, tongues can be faked, and I don't have any serpents handy around the house. But I do have Draino, and the first one of the lot of them that drinks it without hurt, well, they can preach at me to their heart's content.

And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover." -- Mark 16:17-18

[Pure Argent]

Which is exactly the problem: I sent this link to my sister - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o92x6AvxCFg. Her reaction was (paraphrase): "Yeah, but that's easy. You just take a bunch of fossils from various place it make it look like it's an evolutionary chain."
S.

In response, you may try showing her how fervent scientists are about hunting down people who fake scientific evidence. Find some examples of hoax fossils and how they were debunked. Show these to her and explain that scientists are aware that there are fakers, but the fakers' evidence is disproved quickly. The evidence that there is now has been repeatedly verified by many different sources.

[Unlike a Bull]

"I have been thinking a lot about what you said recently. We just got a new DVD about creation that is very interesting. It talks about ice, the complexity of water, that it's God's creation. When I see all that, I don't understand how you can believe that everything has evolved. That's not possible.

Interesting that someone would look at ice crystals and think "design" where as someone like me would look at ice crystals and think "beautifully complex structure arising from a random accumulation of molecules due to the laws of physics." In fact, I think that ice perfectly illustrates how the laws of physics allow for complexity to spontaneously arise without the need for God to interfere. If complex ice crystals can form without divine intervention than how come the complex building blocks for life can't also?

The fact that we recover from illnesses, that we can smell, see and feel. How did that come to be if everything evolved?

These are all easily explained by evolution. Any species that evolved a proto-version of any of the above would out compete it's neighbors. I'll give a quick example for smell: I routinely smell food from my fridge before I consume it to check for spoilage, especially with regard to deli meat. I just don't trust deli meat. If I were lacking this sense I probably would have eaten spoiled food many times by now. Not to mention that animals with better senses of smell than humans can detect predators/prey from a distance, increasing their chances of survival.

Moreover, how come we see colours, and not just black and white?

along the same lines as spoiled lunchmeat, except green oranges aren't good food, but orange oranges are. And, colorful fruit stands out against a green tree (making it easier to gather fruit) if you see color.

Our cells have been created to continue to reproduce themselves forever - why does that process suddenly stop?

They stop reproducing themselves because we die. I'm not sure where she's going with this. Cells need certain things in order to grow and reproduce. when we consume food and breathe air, the cells get what they need, when we cease to function, so do they.

Also, cells aren't able to reproduce for ever. http://longevity.about.com/od/researchandmedicine/p/telomeres.htm

How come we use only 10 percent of our brain capacity during our lifetime? Doesn't that mean that we were made to live and learn forever?
At best, this would allow us to live ten times our normal life span before our brain became "full". But, the "10 % thing" is myth anyway.

I think these are things worth thinking about."

I agree. I am also glad to see that she is willing (at least in theory) to think about these things.

If I were you I would address each of her questions as they come. They shouldn't be too hard to explain evolutionarily with a quick google search. I would also ask questions that might get her thinking. like:

If us earthlings are God's ultimate goal why the vastness of space? What about the planets around stars that we will probably never be able to observe, why are they there? If the stars were created a little over 6,000 years ago then the ones that are more than 6,000 light years away must have had their light created in transit. Why?

If the great flood happened why is there no geological evidence for it? Why haven't we found any fossil evidence to contradict evolution? Why would fossils of extinct species be buried deeper than fossils of living creatures?

It shouldn't take much to convince her of micro--evolution. Check out http://www.talkorigins.org/ for plenty of evidence. Ask her why that can't be extrapolated out to form macro-evolution. And why our expanding universe can't be extrapolated back to the big bang.

And above all, be respectful. Don't insult her God and don't come off as overly aggressive. Your goal should be to get her to think and question things she been taught. I hope it all works out well.

[steve s]

Although, she'd argue that 'yes, there is variation. But one species does not turn into another'.


Ask her if she accepts that 1+1=2. When she says "Yes," ask her why she refuses to accept that 1+1+1+1+1=5.

Steve S.

[stijndeloose]

Hi!

First, thanks again to all for your advice and ideas!

Just got another mail from my sister. She wisely ignores the scientific questions that I raised (and my replies to her arguments) in my last e-mail.

However, she did mention why she decided to argue with me: she hopes that there's still a chance that I might re-join Jehovah's Witnesses. Which is the reason why she's discussing things with me, even though 'others have advised her not to'.

To my remark that Jehovah's Witnesses have very often been mistaken about things, she said: 'Well, yeah, they have. But no-one's perfect.' To which my obvious reply would be: then don't insist that people accept everything you say (which they do:not accepting is a reason to be shunned).

Mainly... this is sort of what I feared would happen: ignore the science, stick to your beliefs...

S.

[The Greater Fool]

Hi!

First, thanks again to all for your advice and ideas!

Just got another mail from my sister. She wisely ignores the scientific questions that I raised (and my replies to her arguments) in my last e-mail.

However, she did mention why she decided to argue with me: she hopes that there's still a chance that I might re-join Jehovah's Witnesses. Which is the reason why she's discussing things with me, even though 'others have advised her not to'.

To my remark that Jehovah's Witnesses have very often been mistaken about things, she said: 'Well, yeah, they have. But no-one's perfect.' To which my obvious reply would be: then don't insist that people accept everything you say (which they do:not accepting is a reason to be shunned).

Mainly... this is sort of what I feared would happen: ignore the science, stick to your beliefs...

S.

You would think God's chosen organization would get it right. When God chose the Jews, how many of the prophets got it wrong? Seems I recall when a prophet said it was going to happen, it happenned. So why would God allow his modern organization to be wrong?

After all, JW's ask folks to judge their own religion by "the fruits" they bear. Seems JW's Governing Body is bearing "wrong" (aka "false") fruits.

[stijndeloose]

After all, JW's ask folks to judge their own religion by "the fruits" they bear. Seems JW's Governing Body is bearing "wrong" (aka "false") fruits.

Ah! You seem to know them! :)

I do agree. The hard part is finding the proper wording for them to at least consider that, let alone accept it.

S.

[stijndeloose]

To get an impression of JW's policy on critical thinking, you can check:

http://aycu33.webshots.com/image/21912/2001532577224620787_rs.jpg

S.

[Fizzer]

Interesting that someone would look at ice crystals and think "design" where as someone like me would look at ice crystals and think "beautifully complex structure arising from a random accumulation of molecules due to the laws of physics." In fact, I think that ice perfectly illustrates how the laws of physics allow for complexity to spontaneously arise without the need for God to interfere. If complex ice crystals can form without divine intervention than how come the complex building blocks for life can't also?

However, some would see God as the one who created those laws of physics which govern how those ice crystals form from a random accumulation of molecules into a beautifully complex structure.


If us earthlings are God's ultimate goal why the vastness of space? What about the planets around stars that we will probably never be able to observe, why are they there?

If people lived forever, there would eventually be the need to spread out.


If the stars were created a little over 6,000 years ago then the ones that are more than 6,000 light years away must have had their light created in transit. Why?

JW's don't believe in a 6,000 year old earth or universe, and don't really have a problem with the currently estimated age of the universe.

[JWideman]

You won't get anywhere arguing about her beliefs. Her beliefs come from the WTBTS, and she trusts them completely. You have to show her that the WTBTS cannot be trusted.

[Tumbleweed]

If you are into "figuratively speaking" couldn't "first man'' be figurative as well. If you don't take the Bible literally, it opens up a whole new bunch of philosophical possibilities. Scientists can easily kick Bible literalists in the butt , but what the hell do they do about a religious philosopher who says "let he among you that is without sin toss the first stone?"

[steve s]

If us earthlings are God's ultimate goal why the vastness of space? What about the planets around stars that we will probably never be able to observe, why are they there?

If people lived forever, there would eventually be the need to spread out.

To a galaxy 10 billion light years away? I've heard of urban sprawl, but that's ridiculous.




JW's don't believe in a 6,000 year old earth or universe, and don't really have a problem with the currently estimated age of the universe.

But they deny evolution? What do they think was happening on earth for the first 4.5 billion years before god finally started creating lifeforms?

Steve S.

[boloboffin]

stijndeloose, I'd suggest at this point that you gently but firmly make clear that you won't be converting back, and that you'd like to progress to the part of your sibling relationship where she accepts that and you still love each other.

That is, if you simply want the conversion efforts to stop. If you think there's a chance she might join you, then you'd keep the discussion moving forward.

[stijndeloose]

I'd suggest at this point that you gently but firmly make clear that you won't be converting back, and that you'd like to progress to the part of your sibling relationship where she accepts that and you still love each other.

Not sure if I'll be able to convince her about that! :)

That is, if you simply want the conversion efforts to stop. If you think there's a chance she might join you, then you'd keep the discussion moving forward.

It's not that I want her to join her. But I think it's quite sad when people simply accept every tiny bit of information from one source (indeed, the WBTS) without having a critical look at it. The research they claim to do aims only to confirm the information they get from them. I don't insist she join me (I'm not trying to convert her to atheism), but I would very much like her to develop some critical thinking skills.

S.

[stijndeloose]

You won't get anywhere arguing about her beliefs. Her beliefs come from the WTBTS, and she trusts them completely. You have to show her that the WTBTS cannot be trusted.

Any idea how to do that gently, without offending anybody?

Thanks!

S.

[Leviath]

To get an impression of JW's policy on critical thinking, you can check:

http://aycu33.webshots.com/image/21912/2001532577224620787_rs.jpg

S.

Is it possible to provide the source for that page? I guess it's from Watch Tower or Awake, but which issue?

[stijndeloose]

Is it possible to provide the source for that page? I guess it's from Watch Tower or Awake, but which issue?

No, it's "Our Kingdom Ministry", a publication used internally by Jehovah's Witnesses (they do not give it to just anyone, only to 'active' Jehovah's Witnesses).

Telling form the announcements, it's the September 2007 issue.

S.

[Ocelot]

OK it's a tricky one here. You have an opportunity to try to encourage your sister out to the Jehova's Witnesses. You could say something like well if examined these facts quite carefully and they've left me pretty conviced about things. Much as I'm sure you're pretty convinced about conflicting things. However If you're porepared to keep an open mind and research this independantly with me then so am I and if it turns out that the elders haven't been lying then I'll come back, but if it turns out that the elders are deliberately dishonest are you prepared to run the gauntlet is being disfellowshipped by doing independent research that would catch them out?

[stijndeloose]

Sounds like a good strategy to me...

Although it's pretty hard to prove that they have actually been lying. It's not so hard to prove that they are (or have been) wrong. Which should (in theory) be enough reason to doubt their current teachings. But it hardly ever is.

I'm a bit surprised I haven't been disfellowshipped yet: my atheistic posts on my Facebook page should have been reason enough already. :D

[Barsdamian]

I'm a bit surprised I haven't been disfellowshipped yet: my atheistic posts on my Facebook page should have been reason enough already. :D

You likely won't be as you left on your own. I was the same and I have never been disfellowshipped for speaking out. JWs only count practicing members of the congregation (publishers). A certain period after you stop filling out the monthly service slips (do they still have those?) you are dropped off the publisher roles. There is no need to disfellowship you as you are no longer considered one of them.

Now if you tried to go back and attend a meeting as an onlooker and they knew about your atheist position then I believe they likely would disfellowship you as a means to keep you away from the flock. As long as you aren't near them they'll leave you alone.

[stijndeloose]

the monthly service slips (do they still have those?)

Yep.

As long as you aren't near them they'll leave you alone.

Well, there's a lot of JWs among my Facebook contacts. But obviously I am not attacking the 'Organization' directly.

[Fizzer]

To a galaxy 10 billion light years away? I've heard of urban sprawl, but that's ridiculous.

Reminds me of that old ABC Schoolhouse Rock song about the expansion west across North America. "Elbow room, elbow room, gotta gotta get some elbow room!"
But assuming population growth continues and no one ever dies, you'll eventually need the space and travelling 10 billion light years isn't that big a deal if you're 200 billion years old (even assuming no FTL travel capabilities).


But they deny evolution? What do they think was happening on earth for the first 4.5 billion years before god finally started creating lifeforms?

Geological forces at work, plus the animal/plantlife would have been created during that time - dinosaurs, etc. in preparation for man.

[Unlike a Bull]

However, some would see God as the one who created those laws of physics which govern how those ice crystals form from a random accumulation of molecules into a beautifully complex structure.

And before we knew better people believed that God created earthquakes, the northern lights and eclipses. Just because we don't know the cause of something doesn't mean that people get to proclaim that God did it, without providing any evidence. At best, without evidence, God becomes exactly as probable as any other explanation. However, I prefer natural explanations, as supernatural ones tend to fail when our ignorance wanes.




If people lived forever, there would eventually be the need to spread out.[quote]

A very large, but finite universe only postpones the problem. Eventually the universe would get overcrowded. If people lived forever and continued to reproduce, they would need an infinite amount of space and, presumably, an infinite amount of resources.



[quote]JW's don't believe in a 6,000 year old earth or universe, and don't really have a problem with the currently estimated age of the universe.

My apologies, After re-reading the post I see they believe that mankind was created a little over 6,000 years ago, not the universe. I'll work on my reading comprehension skills :D

[vIQleS]

Suggestion:

Try asking her why she thinks that the 'management' have such strict rules about talking and debating with apostates.

Is it because they're afraid that she might talk you back in to the church?

[Pixel42]

Just because we don't know the cause of something doesn't mean that people get to proclaim that God did it, without providing any evidence.
Or, in the words of David Attenborough: "the correct scientific response to something that is not understood is always to look harder for the explanation, not give up and assume a supernatural cause"

[stijndeloose]

Or, in the words of David Attenborough: "the correct scientific response to something that is not understood is always to look harder for the explanation, not give up and assume a supernatural cause"

David Attenborough rocks!

[Fizzer]

And before we knew better people believed that God created earthquakes, the northern lights and eclipses. Just because we don't know the cause of something doesn't mean that people get to proclaim that God did it, without providing any evidence. At best, without evidence, God becomes exactly as probable as any other explanation. However, I prefer natural explanations, as supernatural ones tend to fail when our ignorance wanes.

But you can always go back one level before the natural explanation. Like with the snowflakes. We know they look the way they look because of how the laws of physics govern the molecular interaction of the water molecules at different temperatures. Go back a step: laws of physics created by God. We know the natural forces that cause the northern lights, we know the gravitational laws that control the movements of the earth, sun, and moon that result in eclipses, but you can always go back a level and say that those things were put in place by God. Many people see scientific research and increased understanding of the universe as a way to get a glimpse of the mind of God.

[stijndeloose]

But you can always go back one level before the natural explanation. Like with the snowflakes. We know they look the way they look because of how the laws of physics govern the molecular interaction of the water molecules at different temperatures. Go back a step: laws of physics created by God. We know the natural forces that cause the northern lights, we know the gravitational laws that control the movements of the earth, sun, and moon that result in eclipses, but you can always go back a level and say that those things were put in place by God. Many people see scientific research and increased understanding of the universe as a way to get a glimpse of the mind of God.

Well, for over two millenia now God has been being pushed backwards one step at a time. It looks to me that this is going to continue for at least another two millenia... I wonder if God will eventually fall off his piedestal completely.

[Darth Rotor]

Try beer. My next door neighbor is a JW. We talk over many things over beer. He's a nice fellow.

DR

[stijndeloose]

They ARE nice people (or at least, many of them are), unfortunately just a little short-sighted...

To far away to have a beer with her now, doc. Will just have one myself!

S.

[leftysergeant]

Aside from the fact that they can be obnoxiously persistant in proselytizing, I am actually less hostile toward the Witnesses thatn to other fundy sects.

I generally just tell them that I agree with their interpretyation of the meaning of the Beast and the Harlot from Revelations, but that I disagree with their reliance on Genesis for the history of mankind. I mention casually that God is, in my opinion, rational, and would thus want to create everything in a rational manner, thus by natural and observable processes, so that we would know that we are subjct to natural laws and no magic is going to help us if we screw up.

Then I wish them a nice day and retreat to the privacy of my home or walk away.

Nobody gets hurt or upset, and, maybe, someone gets something to think about.

[Fizzer]

I mention casually that God is, in my opinion, rational, and would thus want to create everything in a rational manner, thus by natural and observable processes, so that we would know that we are subjct to natural laws and no magic is going to help us if we screw up.

I'm not sure I understand how that conflicts with Jehovah's Witness theology?

[stijndeloose]

I'm not sure I understand how that conflicts with Jehovah's Witness theology?

In a number of ways:

- they're day-age creationists, so evolution is in direct conflict with their beliefs
- they take the gospels to be factual, trustworthy history, including JC's miracles and his resurrection
- they believe in prophecy

etc. etc.

There's nothing rational about that, as far as I can imagine.

S.

[Puggy]

Some years ago, I noticed that they get most of their beliefs from what their tracts and books say, not necessarily from the bible directly.

So, my technique was to ask them for copies of their books.

One JW book that I recommend You get is "Life, how did it get here? By evolution of creation?" It's from were they get all their evolution beliefs, and it also contains mountains of logical fallacies, out of context quotes, lies, contradictions, strawmen, etc. Really funny stuff. It's a really small book, and it's just sad that they can get so much stuff wrong on such few pages. They even cite Darwin as having doubts about Evolution (out of context, of course).

After getting the book I googled criticism on it and found these two resources:

http://www.dimaggio.org/Heretic/critical.htm
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/jw-book.html

What I do, is turn the pages and show them the lies, and fallacies (i have many post-it notes on the margins.) I tell them that they would be better served by reading biology textbooks, rather than their own books. I do it in a nice way, not to scare them away.

If a real, God inspired religion commits so much errrors, imagine what a fake one would do? hehe.

They always leave with an uncomfortable looking face.

ETA: I guess that there is no point in continuing to persuade them about evolution if they still defend the book, as this is their source for their beliefs.

[stijndeloose]

[url]http://www.dimaggio.org/Heretic/critical.htm[/url

Thanks for the link! I knew about the book's errors and falsehoods, but I didn't know about this link yet!

S.

[glenster]

Someone might get some mileage out of the research I have about the JWs
leaders so far at Glenster's Guide to GTJ Brooklyn.

[JetLeg]

GREAT!! Thanks! I tried to get her to read The God Delusion, but the title was enough to get her to refuse.




If she refuses to read books you recommend her, what is the point of reasoning with her?

If she refuses to read a book you recommend, it means she is just pretending to reason. Deep inside her, there is a person that shuts her ears, and says "Don't listen to anything he says, blah blah blah".

[Fizzer]

Originally Posted by leftysergeant
I mention casually that God is, in my opinion, rational, and would thus want to create everything in a rational manner, thus by natural and observable processes, so that we would know that we are subjct to natural laws and no magic is going to help us if we screw up.

I'm not sure I understand how that conflicts with Jehovah's Witness theology?

In a number of ways:

- they're day-age creationists, so evolution is in direct conflict with their beliefs
- they take the gospels to be factual, trustworthy history, including JC's miracles and his resurrection
- they believe in prophecy

etc. etc.

There's nothing rational about that, as far as I can imagine.

Ok, I see what you're saying now, although a JW would say that God did create everything in a rational manner - just not through evolution. And for this point "so that we would know that we are subjct to natural laws and no magic is going to help us if we screw up.", I don't think any JW would claim to not be subject to natural laws and don't expect "magic" to help in case of screw-ups, at least in this time frame - JW's would not however deny past miracles recorded in the Bible or the expectation of future divine intervention on a global scale.

[Bill Thompson]

We have a wonderful friend who is a Jehovah's Witness. The only thing I can do is not discuss religion.

[stijndeloose]

Okay - so here's a new question.

When she asked how evolution could explain the development of the eye, I gave her this video:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yj_lNQerUJ4

Her (fairly obvious, but legitimate) question was: then why did flatworms not develop full-fledged eyes? Why are there still simple life-forms?

Any suggestions?

Thanks!

S.

[Ryan O'Dine]

Okay - so here's a new question.

When she asked how evolution could explain the development of the eye, I gave her this video:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yj_lNQerUJ4

Her (fairly obvious, but legitimate) question was: then why did flatworms not develop full-fledged eyes? Why are there still simple life-forms?

Any suggestions?

Thanks!

S.
I'm sure you'll get more erudite answers, but the simple explanation is that flatworms are extremely well suited to the niche they occupy. Larger eyes would require more energy (to develop and maintain) than would be gained in improvements in food acquisition/predator evasion.

In short, it would be a losing proposition in the efficiency equation.


ETA: So why did anything evolve beyond a flatworm? To occupy and take advantage of other niches.

[Ocelot]

Here's how I'd answer...

Yes, the flatworm has photoreceptors but no eye structure. Thus it can detect the difference between light and dark but it cannot resolve an image.

According to Darwin's theory this was the state of play in one of our distant ancestors. What was the difference between our ancestor and the morden day flatworm's ancestor that means that one went on to sire a line that evoloved eyes and another didn't.

I can tell that you're actually interested in the answer. Isn't science great. I know there's a part of you that hopes I'm stumped by the question and have to fall back on creationism, but another part of you really does hope that there is an answer, that the overwhelming majority of evolutionary biologists aren't stupid idiots who've overlooked this question and that their answer is an interesting one.

The answer is of course environment. The modern day flatworm lives in an environmental niche where it's basic photorecepters confer some sort of selection advantage. Perhaps those that live at sea can use them to reset their circadian rythms and moderate their behavior between day and night. Perhaps those that live as parasites can use them to determine whether they are inside a host or out in the daylight and act accordingly. There really are a lot of different flatworms so there's not going to be a single answer. Our primitive ancestor is likely to have been in a similar situation.

The next stage in the evolution of the eye would be a genetic mutation that affected the surface where these photorecepter cells are. Any mutation that made the surface slightly concave would be a step towards the eye.

Natural selection says that individuals with this mutation will pass on more copies of this gene than those without the mutation, if it confers an advantage that helps them pass on copies of it's genes. Well duh! talk about stating the obvious.

In many environments this is the case. a slightly concave surface means that a light source or shadow on one side would have a greater effect on the photorecepters facing it then those at a slight angle to it. If your environmental niche means that this helps you to evade predators, find food or locate a mate then that's an advantage. However there are, and always have been environmental niches where this is not the case. It's telling that today's Flatworms locate their food in other ways, their strategy for dealing with predators is unrestrianed reproduction and they don't need a mate because they reproduce asexually.

This last fact is especially pertinant with regard to genetic drift. You see for a mutation to spread through a population it doesn't actually have to confer an advantage. It can be completely neutral but lucky. However this is more likely to happen in a sexual species. Horizonatal gene transfer enables genes to dominate a population much more rapidly and thus increases the probability of this happening by chance alone. I told you science was interesting.

But of courese there's a new obvious question. If the ancestor of the modern flatworm is so stymied at the first step to evolving an eye why was our similar ancestor not so stymied. The answer once again is environment. It is likely that the first of our ancestor that carried this mutation, was born into an environment where this mutation did confer an advantage, or perhaps, but less likely, its line had a neutral mutation in an environment where it confered no advantage but stumbled accross an environmental niche where and advantage was to be gleaned.

This would have been some time in the precambrian. We know this from fossil deposits such as the Burgess shale which document the evoltuion of the eye. So even before we know how it happend we do know that it did happen and when. It's now confimred by DNA testing that tells us how many neutral mutations and mutations in junk DNA have accumulated in the time since we had a common ancestor with the other species of bilatera. Tell me that's not interesting.

Finally there's one other obvious question. If way back in the precambrian having that first mutation towards having eyes was not any advantage in your own environmental niche but could still be an advantage enabling you and your line to go off and colonise some other environmental niche - why doesn't that happen today. Why don't all the flat worms evolve eyes anyway and go somewhere where it would be useful. The asnwer unsuprisingly enough is once more environment. Back in the precambrian if a flat worm wanted to find another environmental niche it was easy to find unoccupied territory. The only competition would likely come from it's own sisters. These days such environmental niches are much more likely to be occupied. More competition means such an offshoot is less likely to suceeed.

Though it still could happen. A species of flatworm could conceiveably produce a new offshoot on its way to developing an eye and sucessfully compete with the other species already occupying that niche or more likely a new niche might somehow open up. Rare as that is I don't know that it isn't happeneing right now. But so long as there are still habitats like it's original one where having this mutation does not confer an advatage then it's cousins - those without the mutation will carry on competing in their original home. And that's the answer to your question.

Can you blame me for finding it more fullfilling to know all that than just deciding that it's because an inscrutable God chose it to be so.

This question is rather similar to an old creationist canard. If we evolved from monkeys then why are there still monkeys. This argument only works if you take an incorrect anthropocentric view of evolution as a single ladder climbing from primitive origins all the way to the pinicle of creation - us. Unfortunately this isn't the way that evolution works at all. It's not a directed process. Rather than a ladder it's a tree with many forks and branches and we hold no special place. (You know I think that's the objection I think many people have with evolution - they like to feel special)

At some point about six million years ago some monkey or ape like tribe split into two populations. One went on to become chimps and bonobos, the other went on to become us. We're not decesnded from Chimps, we're cousins to them. What we're decended from would most likely be kinda apelike though. The question is therefore akin to if we're descended from <insert surname of maternal grandparents> how come there are still <insert aforementioned surname again>

I hope you wouldn't be fooled by such a specious argument

[Ryan O'Dine]

By the way, I've been “entertaining” a local JW a few times, have had some lengthy discussions, and I can't say I'm bowled over by their beliefs. Maybe I just haven't delved deep enough, but they seem fairly superficial and somewhat hollow.

On the other hand, I don't see a lot of evidence of really malicious brainwashing. Maybe that comes with greater exposure.

If anyone's interested, I could post a brief summary of our discussions. Our next conversation will probably be our last, though, as I don't see much point.

Anyway, I wish you the best of luck, stijndeloose. I, too, have relatives who've been sucked into a pretty extreme religion (not JWs), and it can be both frustrating and disheartening. For my bottom line, I would put your relationship ahead of any deprogramming efforts, but as long as she'll let you keep trying, give it your best shot.

[Cainkane1]

Okay - so here's a new question.

When she asked how evolution could explain the development of the eye, I gave her this video:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yj_lNQerUJ4

Her (fairly obvious, but legitimate) question was: then why did flatworms not develop full-fledged eyes? Why are there still simple life-forms?

Any suggestions?

Thanks!

S.
Flatworms occupy an ecological niche that doesn't require eyes. Evolution is about helping organisms survive in their environment. If a living thing does that then theres no need to evolve although mutations do occur. If a change comes along in their environment then they will either adjust or go extinct.

[truethat]

Jehovah's Witnesses can be sent away by simply opening the door with a sad face and glancing longingly at the tracts, and saying "I'm very sorry but I've been disfellowshipped" then taking the tract as if it was a long lost pal, and slowly closing the door.

When you are disfellowshipped no one in the congregation is allowed to talk to you any more.

Tahdah.

[stijndeloose]

Thanks to all for the very helpful replies! Much appreciated!

Will translate to Dutch and reformulate and see what she says. :)

Oh, Ryan, yes - I would be interested in reading a summary of your discussions.

Grtz,

S.

[Ryan O'Dine]

Oh, Ryan, yes - I would be interested in reading a summary of your discussions.

Grtz,

S.

Thank you. Please forgive the lengthy response.

Our last conversation was this last weekend, and went something like this (paraphrasing and summarizing)...

I asked him why God didn't create a world in which there was free will, but no possibility of evil. His answer: “I don't know.” Refreshing, actually.

I asked how God allowing Satan to rule the world is a moral act. He compared it to a teacher who allows an unruly student to govern the class to prove the teacher's value. I compared it to a parent allowing a child to burn herself on the stove to prove the parent's value. He said he might allow a child to burn herself if she refused to learn the lesson. I'm not sure if he was quite joking.

I asked if he ever disagreed with a Watchtower pronouncement. He did remember one occasion involving a scriptural interpretation, but said the Watchtower eventually came around to his way of thinking. Generally, he admitted the Watchtower are only people, and capable of error. I suggested he was therefore putting fallible people between him and God. He countered with Biblical references to a “prophesied” organization with which the Watchtower supposedly conforms.

I asked if the Watchtower discouraged independent study, and he freely admitted they do. IIRC, he said you're allowed to do your own research, but it's recommended against. He personally makes no use of the internet.

I asked about disfellowshipping, which I felt was an act of hatred. He said you do not hate the one disfellowshipped. It is a form of punishment, though, and meant to turn the person around.

I disagreed that wars, disease, natural catastrophes, and so on were getting worse; and I suggested that needing to be on the edge of your seat all the time was evidence of a fragile belief system. He admitted it could appear that way, but went on to suggest there are always signs pointing to the fulfillment of prophecies. And regardless of whether they're coming soon or not, the believer needs to be on his spiritual toes.

I didn't get into evolution at all. I intend to make it my point of contention, and my “thanks but goodbye” argument next time around.

Generally, the bulk of my concerns were met with Biblical verses or stories, many of which were non-sequiturs in large part. You try to get him back on track, more stories and verses. His common response to my pointing out what looked bad in his religion was, “It does look bad, doesn't it? But if you look at this verse, where Paul says...” etc. It was a real soft-sell. Many of my issues were left dangling, though, because I wanted to let him speak his peace.

In fact, my objective was not to convince him, but allow him to convince me. And overall, to be frank, his attempts were not impressive -- making me wonder how vulnerable a person has to be to join the JWs. For the record, he was an elderly gentleman, and a teacher in the congregation, so no green behind the ears newbie.

Anyway, it was kind of interesting while it lasted. Also, in a way, a little bit sad.

[garcia<3]

I can't even convince my JW parents that I don't believe in god. Their delusional, seriously I've told them that I don't believe in god because I haven't seen enough evidence to prove that he exists and they go off on a rant about how I just don't want to see the evidence and that deep down inside I still believe in god :jaw-dropp


They scare me sometimes :eek:

[stijndeloose]

Anyway, it was kind of interesting while it lasted. Also, in a way, a little bit sad.

It is, isn't it. I'm having a hard time understanding how anyone could become a JW... I was raised as one, but, I mean, how a grown-up, thinking person could ever be convinced by them is hard to understand. Although... since they're telling people they predicted 1914, I guess that's a bit of a convincing argument...

S.

[stijndeloose]

... they go off on a rant about how I just don't want to see the evidence and that deep down inside I still believe in god :jaw-dropp

Same thing here, mate. It's unbelievable, isn't it?

Meh...

S.

[The Greater Fool]

I can't even convince my JW parents that I don't believe in god. Their delusional, seriously I've told them that I don't believe in god because I haven't seen enough evidence to prove that he exists and they go off on a rant about how I just don't want to see the evidence and that deep down inside I still believe in god :jaw-dropp


They scare me sometimes :eek:
My mom (who was an in-again out-again JW, currently out-again) gave me this line. I basically told her that I can be moral without god, and that just as believers misinterpret other evidences, she is misinterpreting this evidence in spite the glaring fact that I am the anti-christ, err an atheist ;)

[stijndeloose]

Errr... I think I did something wrong: when discussing evolution/the global flood/a bunch of other stuff with her, she suggested I consult the "Watchtower DVD", insisting that I'd be surprised at the amount of answers and useful information I'd find there. My reply was that I had already done that, and found very few answers, and that I, on the contrary, had noticed that Watchtower publication are not exactly the most reliable source of information.

After that, she decided to close the discussion. I figure I must've been a bit harsh...

S.

[Patsy]

Errr... I think I did something wrong: when discussing evolution/the global flood/a bunch of other stuff with her, she suggested I consult the "Watchtower DVD", insisting that I'd be surprised at the amount of answers and useful information I'd find there. My reply was that I had already done that, and found very few answers, and that I, on the contrary, had noticed that Watchtower publication are not exactly the most reliable source of information.

After that, she decided to close the discussion. I figure I must've been a bit harsh...

S.

Your sister did not like your answer, because it was not what she wanted to hear. That does not make your answer harsh.

[stijndeloose]

Your sister did not like your answer, because it was not what she wanted to hear. That does not make your answer harsh.

That's probably true. I'm just thinking that maybe, if I had refrained from criticizing the WTBTS directly, the discussion might not have been closed. :D

Which does not mean that my criticizm was unfounded, obviously. It wasn't.

S.

[Symbol]

Stijndeloose, I feel your frustration.

Imagine walking into any room and trying to engage random people in a debate on evolution versus creation. The proportion of people who would be interested in a lively conversation on technicalities of the subject would be next to zero.

Similarly with Jehovah's Witnesses. This is not the route to the Ah-hah Moment that you are looking for with your sister.

There are a few key things to remember with the Witnesses.

Firstly, it is a high-control group with regard to lifestyle, culture and social interaction. This provides the biggest challenge for you - her whole life will by now revolve around only JW friends, all her major and minor life decisions will be JW approved. At the same time, this is also the main reason people leave.

Secondly, cognitive dissonance is a major feature of what keeps JWs in the religion. And the longer they have been in, the stronger they work to match their "beliefs" with "what I have always believed and done".

And thirdly, so-called Bible study within Jehovah's Witnesses is neither Bible nor study. They study Watchtower literature exclusively, even though Bible verses are quoted, and they don't even "study" the literature, they read a paragraph at a time and then answer questions at the bottom of each paragraph, both in preparation for and then during Watchtower and book study meetings every single week. It's textbook self-indoctrination perfected over the last century.

So challenging JWs on doctrine seldom nudges them towards leaving (see my second point).

Any idea how to do that gently, without offending anybody?

One of the major internet resources that is helping many JWs to become ex-Witnesses is a website called Jehovahs-Witness.net (http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/active). Have you come across this yet? The thousands of contributors range from long-term scholarly ex-Witnesses to people who have recently been helped to leave to current elders and Bethelites who are having serious doubts.

My suggestion, perhaps, would be to find one thread, besides fluff, with a fairly light social or cultural topic but with depth, and then try and subtly get her to read it. This would hopefully get her to start looking at other threads. (Remember that JWs aren't allowed to visit sites like this on the internet, so there's your challenge.)

After a couple of hours on this site anybody who has the slightest doubt about "the truth" being the truth would get courage to think about abandoning ship.

If she does start having doubts, she'll need you to be there for her.

[Telaynay's G'son]

A simple question...

Why are the JW buildings (at least here in Oklahoma) sans any windows and illuminated as in a prison compound?

[iiwo]

I notice someone mentioned Talk Origins (http://www.talkorigins.org/) already. That is a good resource, one of the primary ones in my journey.

I would also point her to sites such as Glenn Morton's site. Here is one of his pages discussing the Green River Formation (http://home.entouch.net/dmd/greenriver.htm) in Wyoming. His pages are not as cleverly formatted, but the content is pretty useful, and in-site navigation is really quite simple.

In my experience telling someone "you're wrong" is not nearly as effective as "if you're right, just make sure *this* or *that* are included in your awareness..." and encourage them to approach things they believe with new information. Trying to make that new information fit takes a little longer, but is very effective in getting them to question their beliefs--sometimes even without realizing it.

[Fizzer]

A simple question...

Why are the JW buildings (at least here in Oklahoma) sans any windows and illuminated as in a prison compound?


Easier, cheaper, and fast to build (most Kingdom Halls are built in 2 to 4 days). Ongoing insurance costs can be cheaper with no windows too. Less vandalism (no windows to break). Sufficient lighting is safer (you've typically got ~100 people arriving and leaving at the same time several times a week at night. Light also helps reduce vandalism. All meetings are open to the public, it's not like they're trying to keep people from peeking inside at nefarious goings on.

There are plenty of Kingdom Halls with windows though, just do a Google Image Search.

[Telaynay's G'son]

Easier, cheaper, and fast to build (most Kingdom Halls are built in 2 to 4 days). Ongoing insurance costs can be cheaper with no windows too. Less vandalism (no windows to break). Sufficient lighting is safer (you've typically got ~100 people arriving and leaving at the same time several times a week at night. Light also helps reduce vandalism. All meetings are open to the public, it's not like they're trying to keep people from peeking inside at nefarious goings on.

There are plenty of Kingdom Halls with windows though, just do a Google Image Search.

Thanx for the input as all the ones I've (personally) observed were constructed in this fashion. Contemplated it could be a reaction to some of their history especially during WWII and the SCOTUS rulings (most, in their favor) around that time.

[Fizzer]

Thanx for the input as all the ones I've (personally) observed were constructed in this fashion. Contemplated it could be a reaction to some of their history especially during WWII and the SCOTUS rulings (most, in their favor) around that time.


Older Kingdom Halls tend to have more windows than newer ones, but there are regional variations based on building codes and things like that. And some Halls were pre-existing buildings that were bought later. Most newer ones are all fairly similar in construction to each other, and that's mainly a cost saving measure.

[Pure Argent]

That's probably true. I'm just thinking that maybe, if I had refrained from criticizing the WTBTS directly, the discussion might not have been closed. :D

Which does not mean that my criticizm was unfounded, obviously. It wasn't.

S.

No, it wasn't. You are correct. But the fact that she broke off the conversation means that you got to her.

Your job here is not to convince her that the Jehovah way of life is wrong, but to plant that tiny seed of doubt. If the seed falls on good soil (pardon the reference, couldn't resist), it will grow. Hopefully she'll eventually start to look for alternative answers. Then you can show her what you've been talking about this whole time.

[Barsdamian]

Growing up as a JW, when someone would challenge your beliefs beyond what you could defend, you were taught to retreat to the safety of the flock or WTBTS publications. JWs learn to go 'shields up' very quickly in a discussion.

I think Pure Agent has hit the nail on its head. All you can really do is plant that seed of doubt and hope that it grows on its own. The change has to come from within.

[Symbol]

Growing up as a JW, when someone would challenge your beliefs beyond what you could defend, you were taught to retreat to the safety of the flock or WTBTS publications.


Yes. The Watchtower publication Reasoning from the Scriptures is a topic-by-topic guide on what to say, verbatim, when faced with issues and questions in "field service".

True reasoning is not on the curriculum.

All you can really do is plant that seed of doubt and hope that it grows on its own. The change has to come from within.


True that. But it helps if the person has an alternative social structure in place, and it's difficult for the OP to help his sister with this since they live in different countries.

That alternative social structure is what the Witness rules and regulations are designed to avoid.

[Pure Argent]

I think Pure Agent has hit the nail on its head.

Pure_ARGENT. Note the "R." Sorry. Had to get that out of my system. It's a color, silver-white.