Happy Atheist Forum

So I've got myself involved in an ongoing debate with a Jehovah's Witness. On the last meeting he turned up with another Witness, who was a supposedly a 'member of the scientific community,' to give me a more scientific vewpoint.

As usual it was both interesting and incredibly frustrating but there were two things in particular that this guy said that I suspect to be just plain lies:

1) (Context - I'd said that I wasn't a scientist but evolution made sense to me and I would trust the scientific consensus that evolution is both theory and fact) He said that although micro evolution is true, macro evolution is a myth. Scientific consensus had supported evolution 20 years ago but since then new evidence has come to light and this is no longer the case.

2) (Context - increaced war, disease, natural disasters). He said that seismologists would confirm there have been more earthquakes in the last century than any other century previous. I said that this may be more to do with increased recording of quakes rather than actually more quakes. He said that this wouldn't come into it as they could use new technology to look back and tell how many quakes there were hundreds of years ago. He said that increased earthquakes were a scientific fact that could not be argued with.

Any evolutionary biologists or seismologists here? Wanna give me your thoughts..

Squid knows his stuff, evolution wise, and has posted a lot of great content in previous posts.  He'd be the guy I'd ask.

Macroevolution has mountains of evidence to support it. That said, why divide evolution in two in the first place?

Your suspicions were correct.  They lied on both counts.

The question you now need to ask them is why they are trying to trick you into believeing something they don't believe themselves.  Have they asked you for any money yet?

No requests for money yet!

The best bit is:
At the end of our discussion I was asking him about his scientific background. He said he worked in medicine and was part of the peer review process for new drugs.
Turns out he's a sodding homeopathist!
 

Quote from: "George"1) (Context - I'd said that I wasn't a scientist but evolution made sense to me and I would trust the scientific consensus that evolution is both theory and fact) He said that although micro evolution is true, macro evolution is a myth. Scientific consensus had supported evolution 20 years ago but since then new evidence has come to light and this is no longer the case.

This is utter crap.  It is very unlikely that this person is "part of the scientific community" , the vagueness of the claimed association makes it suspect.  

*edit* I finally read the follow up posts and saw "Turns out he's a sodding homeopathist!", I guess that supports my claim


Also, macroevolution is NOT a myth and the past 20 years have provided us with even more solid evidence to support it.  Even more controversial speciation types such as sympatric speciation have found ample evidence to support it.  This guy is a liar.  In my experience when someone makes such a claim as this they will start rambling about gradualism and punctuated equilibrium and how PE replaced gradualism and it was a post hoc answer to cover up the gaps and so forth - this will automatically show they do not know what they're are talking about.

As for the earthquakes I can't say for sure, not up to date on my seismology.  However, I'm sure, like much in nature, the frequency of such waxes and wains.  So while it is increasing now (if in fact it is) there's no saying that it won't decrease again in the future.  I'm simply confused as to what earthquakes have to do with the validity of evolutionary theory.

I think the "earthquake" trope is a veiled reference to the end-times, with the corollary (not that they would know what that is, in all likelihood) that conversion soon is imperative.

Quote from: "Asmodean"Macroevolution has mountains of evidence to support it. That said, why divide evolution in two in the first place?

Whole milk is real, but skim milk is a myth pushed by an international conspiracy of dairy farmers.

Quote from: "Will"

Quote from: "Asmodean"Macroevolution has mountains of evidence to support it. That said, why divide evolution in two in the first place?

Whole milk is real, but skim milk is a myth pushed by an international conspiracy of dairy farmers.

Which means milk is not milk, which means pizza is not pizza which means my woman is actually a male...   Never pondered that dilemma from that perspective...

Quote from: "George"2) He said that this wouldn't come into it as they could use new technology to look back and tell how many quakes there were hundreds of years ago.

Wow that is impressive, a machine that can measure past earthquakes.
All the way back to when the earth was created, 6,000 years ago.

Quote from: "The Magic Pudding"

Quote from: "George"2) He said that this wouldn't come into it as they could use new technology to look back and tell how many quakes there were hundreds of years ago.

Wow that is impressive, a machine that can measure past earthquakes.
All the way back to when the earth was created, 6,000 years ago.

Clever, those Japanese  

There is a way to know of past earthquakes though - at least the big ones.

Yes, big ones leaves scars in the form of exposed strata, and the oxidation can be measured.  Also, they can be inferred from things like shifting river courses.

The Jehovah's Witnesses are the bunch who refuse to take blood transfusions and prefer seeing their children die?

Not quite on this topic, but I have to share this story.  When I was a final year student, I was visited by a very kind JW lady who, concerned about my soul, wanted to talk about things more important to me than my final exams.  Now, when I was a baby, I'm told by my parents, I ate a whole bag of rat poison.  Fortunately, they saw me doing it, rushed me to hospital where I was saved by, among other things, a complete blood transfusion.  I still have the scars on my ankles where the needles went in.  So, I listened to the lady's story, and then the following conversation ensued:

Me: Does God have a plan for everyone?
Lady: Yes, definitely
Me: Even for me?
Lady: of course, especially for you
Me: And, can I assume I won't die before I have fulfilled God's plan in my life?
Lady: yes
Me: So God's plan for me is still not done.
Lady: No
Me: JWs are opposed to blood transfusions, right?
Lady: Yes
Me: Why?
Lady: (explaining the reasons about blood being dirty etc etc)
Me: So, if you're in a situation where the only thing that can save you is a blood transfusion, you have to refuse it, and die, and presumably, this will only happen once God's plan for you has been fulfilled.
Lady: Yes, I'm impressed, you really understand these things well.
Me: I had a blood transfusion when I was a baby, without which, I would have been dead already, and, according to you, should have been dead already.  Now, explain that to me in view of your statement that God's plan for me is still not finished.

The lady left.

Quote from: "Parsifal"The Jehovah's Witnesses are the bunch who refuse to take blood transfusions and prefer seeing their children die?

Not quite on this topic, but I have to share this story.  When I was a final year student, I was visited by a very kind JW lady who, concerned about my soul, wanted to talk about things more important to me than my final exams.  Now, when I was a baby, I'm told by my parents, I ate a whole bag of rat poison.  Fortunately, they saw me doing it, rushed me to hospital where I was saved by, among other things, a complete blood transfusion.  I still have the scars on my ankles where the needles went in.  So, I listened to the lady's story, and then the following conversation ensued:

Me: Does God have a plan for everyone?
Lady: Yes, definitely
Me: Even for me?
Lady: of course, especially for you
Me: And, can I assume I won't die before I have fulfilled God's plan in my life?
Lady: yes
Me: So God's plan for me is still not done.
Lady: No
Me: JWs are opposed to blood transfusions, right?
Lady: Yes
Me: Why?
Lady: (explaining the reasons about blood being dirty etc etc)
Me: So, if you're in a situation where the only thing that can save you is a blood transfusion, you have to refuse it, and die, and presumably, this will only happen once God's plan for you has been fulfilled.
Lady: Yes, I'm impressed, you really understand these things well.
Me: I had a blood transfusion when I was a baby, without which, I would have been dead already.  Now, explain that to me in view of your statement that God's plan for me is still not finished.

The lady left.

Awesome!  

Quote from: "The Magic Pudding"

Quote from: "George"2) He said that this wouldn't come into it as they could use new technology to look back and tell how many quakes there were hundreds of years ago.

Wow that is impressive, a machine that can measure past earthquakes.
All the way back to when the earth was created, 6,000 years ago.

Funnily enough although JW's believe that we humans have only been around for around for a few thousand years and don't believe in evolution, they don't put an age onto the earth itself. When I asked them about this they said that the bible doesn't say when the earth was created and it could have happened anytime!

Parsifal,
Haha! Good job your folks weren't JW's or you might not be here to tell the story!

I've thought that my JW might leave one of our meetings on a few occasions after being refuted and left stumped for an answer but he's very persistant! Usually when this happens he says he'll have to 'go away and study on that one' (which means he'll go and ask one of his elders what to say) and then what usually happens is he turns up the next week with a new accomplice to explain it for him, this weeks accomplice, the (pseudo)scientist was the third new face I've seen since this all started a few weeks back. I get the feeling they're working up through the ranks until eventually I'll have the big boys from the Watchtower round and then I'd better start believing!

Squid, thanks for the stuff on about gradualism and punctuated equilibrium. Doing a bit of reading up on that before next meeting!

George, it is not all that bad.  Don't know if you read Mad, but there was this one spoof called: "You know your life is not going very well when..."

One of the memorable cartoons was of a lonely soul sitting there, legs crossed, with a cup of tea, and a JW hastily getting up, putting on his hat, heading for the door, saying: "No I can't stay for another cup of tea, but here's your copy of The Watchtower", implying that if the JWs run to get away from you, your life is pretty useless.

I think your tactic is wrong, you should bore them to death.

The tactic I actually set out with was to deconvert one!
I originally made quite a bit of headway in this respect with the guy's missus. When I read her the bible passage about the girl whose virginity was in dispute (her parents having to prove their daughter's virginity at the city gates and her being stoned to death if they could not) she agreed it was nothing short of disgusting and gave him a look of 'why do we believe this again?' Needless to say he hasn't brought her along since then!
I kinda regret having started the whole thing now but I've learnt a lot and I wanna see what happens!
I actually quite like the guy as well, hopefully it won't end in tears!!

Quote from: "George"The tactic I actually set out with was to deconvert one!
I originally made quite a bit of headway in this respect with the guy's missus. When I read her the bible passage about the girl whose virginity was in dispute (her parents having to prove their daughter's virginity at the city gates and her being stoned to death if they could not) she agreed it was nothing short of disgusting and gave him a look of 'why do we believe this again?' Needless to say he hasn't brought her along since then!
I kinda regret having started the whole thing now but I've learnt a lot and I wanna see what happens!
I actually quite like the guy as well, hopefully it won't end in tears!!

I think what you are doing is excellent, whatever the outcome (unless of course they convert you    ). It's giving you and them an experience and insight that one day could be very valuable. At the very least if somebody says 'atheist just won't listen' your example will prove them wrong. Good on ya!

Im less than a lay person where science is concerned but I think I've gotten better at detecting bullshit over the years...They are trying to tell you that several small scale changes that continue on for ages will NEVER amount to large scale change? BEEP BEEP bullshit... doesn't take a Dawkins or Darwin to work through this one. More earthquakes thus god is real? What if in the next century there are fewer quakes?

Quote from: "NothingSacred"Im less than a lay person where science is concerned but I think I've gotten better at detecting bullshit over the years...They are trying to tell you that several small scale changes that continue on for ages will NEVER amount to large scale change? BEEP BEEP bullshit... doesn't take a Dawkins or Darwin to work through this one. More earthquakes thus god is real? What if in the next century there are fewer quakes?

You're spot on with the Marcro vs Micro evolution non-debate. And the earthquake stuff would appear to be BS too, relying on 'lack of evidence', I suppose the existance of the Andes, Alps, Himalayas, Atlantic and Pacific oceans count for nothing (https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg34.imageshack.us%2Fimg34%2F2438%2Fheheoc.gif&hash=50cf1131f6316b9f48965cce1bfe1877dc8f90e7)

Quote from: "Tank"I suppose the existance of the Andes, Alps, Himalayas, Atlantic and Pacific oceans count for nothing (https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg34.imageshack.us%2Fimg34%2F2438%2Fheheoc.gif&hash=50cf1131f6316b9f48965cce1bfe1877dc8f90e7)

Those, my heavily armored friend, are a construct of the worldwide conspiracy of scientists to stray them lambs of zombiegod from the straight and narrow bridge to heavenly lunacy  

You guys make my ribs hurt from laughing.. I LOVE IT!!!

Quote from: "George"Squid, thanks for the stuff on about gradualism and punctuated equilibrium. Doing a bit of reading up on that before next meeting!

You may find the information in this (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=5004&start=0&hilit=#p67398) post useful in your discussions.

Quote from: "George's anonymous apologist"1) (Context - I'd said that I wasn't a scientist but evolution made sense to me and I would trust the scientific consensus that evolution is both theory and fact) He said that although micro evolution is true, macro evolution is a myth. Scientific consensus had supported evolution 20 years ago but since then new evidence has come to light and this is no longer the case.

Err, no. Case in point:

Macroevolution, when discussed rigorously among those who actually know what it means, is defined as a change in allele frequencies at or above species level. There are irrefutable examples of this having happened, namely in the process of extinction. When a species goes extinct, any unique alleles carried by that species are removed, which constitutes a change in allele frequencies at or above species level. This is macroevolution, however you slice it. I bet you can't even find a creationist who would deny that species have gone extinct, which means that they admit that macroevolution occurs.

In some cases, extinction can also be a speciation event. The clear case of this is in a ring species. Where you have a single species, which is defined as a population throughout which gene transfer can occur (this is the biological species concept, or BSC, and is the most widely accepted rigorous definition, although it can be problematic in some cases, such as where sideways gene transfer is possible, like bacteria), this species can be a string of subspecies (loosely) each of which are interfertile with their immediate neighbours (and often several neghbours beyond, but the ends of which cannot interbreed with each other, this is a ring species. If an event, such as, say, a meteorites strike, wipes out a portion of the middle of the ring species, such that the closest neighbours can no longer interbreed, you have a speciation event, because the nearest neighbours are now separate species, even when the same members of the same subspecies were the same species before the event. This is an extinction that caused a speciation, and therefore a macroevolutionary event.

Quote2) (Context - increaced war, disease, natural disasters). He said that seismologists would confirm there have been more earthquakes in the last century than any other century previous. I said that this may be more to do with increased recording of quakes rather than actually more quakes. He said that this wouldn't come into it as they could use new technology to look back and tell how many quakes there were hundreds of years ago. He said that increased earthquakes were a scientific fact that could not be argued with.

Well, while I suspect that this is guff, it may not be. In reality, plate tectonics is not as completely understood a science as we'd like. I'm certainly not aware of any rigorous means of testing for earthquakes in history, although there are certain instances in which we would be able to tell that an earthquake has happened in a particular instance, such as when fossil beds are uncovered. I know a few geologists, so I will quiz them about this. I would like to see this person provide some rigorous citations, though, because I suspect that this is rectally extracted blind assertion.

Now to read the rest of the thread.

Quote from: "Asmodean"Macroevolution has mountains of evidence to support it. That said, why divide evolution in two in the first place?

This requires an answer, I think. When applied properly, micro- and macroevolution are actually very useful terms, because they are active areas of study. Microevolution is the study of changes in allele frequency below species level, so it looks at frequency of alleles within populations of organisms of the same species. This is incredibly useful in such areas a genetic medicine, as drugs (and other treatments) can be geared for carriers of specific versions of genes, increasing the efficacy of treatments.

Macroevolution is the study of changes in allele frequency at or above species level, and deals with areas such as speciation, extinction, etc. They are studying the same thing in reality, but at different levels, and for different reasons.

Quote from: "Parsifal"Not quite on this topic, but I have to share this story .... The lady left.

I think the adjective I'm looking for is "pwnage".