How To Charge Apple Pencil Wit Lightning...
Technology2 mins ago
jehovas witnesses
80 Answers
Had a couple of JW's at the door today. One of them, an elderly lady, called a few weeks ago and we had a 'friendly' discusion then about the origins of the universe etc. However, not been scientifically minded, I wasnt entirely to refute what she was saying. Today, however, she (and her friend) started on the old 'evolution is just a theory' argument and the 'scientists think that we evolved from monkeys' argument, both of which I could quickly debunk. However, when I asked if they had ever read any Richard Dawkins material (I have) they asked who Richard Dawkins was??? The mind boggles. Probably the most famous creationist debunker on the planet and they had NEVER heard of him??...they asked if I meant HAWKINS???
No doubt they will be back again in the next week or so (particularly as I am always friendly to these self deluded folk... no need to be hostile towards the deluded).
Has anyone got any good questions that I could ask them (particularly re: evolution/creationism) that might make them think for themselves a little bit rather than reading the rubbish that they have to read in their magazines. (they gave me a magazine today, devoted to creationism)
It doesnt have to be the creation/evolution angle, anything that might make them think a little would be helpful.
(as I have a friend who is of the 'born again' variety, it could be usefull for him as well)
Thanks...
No doubt they will be back again in the next week or so (particularly as I am always friendly to these self deluded folk... no need to be hostile towards the deluded).
Has anyone got any good questions that I could ask them (particularly re: evolution/creationism) that might make them think for themselves a little bit rather than reading the rubbish that they have to read in their magazines. (they gave me a magazine today, devoted to creationism)
It doesnt have to be the creation/evolution angle, anything that might make them think a little would be helpful.
(as I have a friend who is of the 'born again' variety, it could be usefull for him as well)
Thanks...
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by kryptic. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
Birdie:
Regarding the eye argument bringing up the insect argument is heading in the wrong direction. They come from a completely different branch of the evolutionary tree. They parted from our line when our ancestors began the embryonic development of the digestive tract with the anus while theirs started with the mouth.
If you want an example of the earliest steps in the progress from the most primitive chordates toward the vertebrate there is no better example then the hagfish.
These creatures have no fins, eyes incapable of forming an image because it has no with no lense, no jaw, teeth made of keratin, only a partial cartilage skull with a fibrous sheath around the brain.
They even absorb food through their skin.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hagfish
Regarding the eye argument bringing up the insect argument is heading in the wrong direction. They come from a completely different branch of the evolutionary tree. They parted from our line when our ancestors began the embryonic development of the digestive tract with the anus while theirs started with the mouth.
If you want an example of the earliest steps in the progress from the most primitive chordates toward the vertebrate there is no better example then the hagfish.
These creatures have no fins, eyes incapable of forming an image because it has no with no lense, no jaw, teeth made of keratin, only a partial cartilage skull with a fibrous sheath around the brain.
They even absorb food through their skin.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hagfish
birdie is right, as usual. These JWs came to our house recently and left their anti-evolution booklet with my wife who, although a Christian, has no time for them, but is always polite.
When they came back a week or so later I was the only one in and when they asked my opinion of their booklet I told them that it was a load of rubbish, that every "argument" in it had been debunked many times. When they asked for an example and I started to give one I realised that they knew nothing whatsoever about evolution. I suggested that they learn something about it from, say, the brilliant books by Richard Dawkins. And - yes!- they had never heard of him!
Only goes to illustrate the old adage - that there are no real opponents of evolution, merely people who don't or won't understand it.
When they came back a week or so later I was the only one in and when they asked my opinion of their booklet I told them that it was a load of rubbish, that every "argument" in it had been debunked many times. When they asked for an example and I started to give one I realised that they knew nothing whatsoever about evolution. I suggested that they learn something about it from, say, the brilliant books by Richard Dawkins. And - yes!- they had never heard of him!
Only goes to illustrate the old adage - that there are no real opponents of evolution, merely people who don't or won't understand it.
beso, would you mail me at [email protected]. I have a message for you - don't worry I'm not a JW :-)
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
Birdie:
I understand what you are saying but I was just pointing out that the primitive eye of the hagfish is an excellent example of a useful but partly developed version of the vertebrate eye. Indeed the hagfish is an excellent example of the partly developed vertebrate.
The upside down image argument doesn't cut it at all. The brain simply interprets the nerve signals and it doesn't have any preconceived notion of up for itself.
A better one is the fact that the light sensitive layer is obscured by the blood supply and nerve layer. This is also the reason for the blind spot because the optic nerve must pass through from the inside of the eye. In eagles they do without the blood vessels and provide the nutrient by washing the retina with free blood.
Another funny thing is that the most sensitive part of the eye (the fovea) is almost insensitive to blue. Consequently when looking at a small blue spot at a distance, it either can't be seen or changes colour when it is imaged by the fovea.
Some animals that live in the arctic has ultraviolet vision because snow and ice reflect it.
Love the Woody Allen quote.
There are many examples of very poor engineering in the design of animals but some do it better than others suggesting there would be multiple designers at work. The God that designed the cephalopod (squid and octopus) eye was obviously far more competent and got it the right way round.
I understand what you are saying but I was just pointing out that the primitive eye of the hagfish is an excellent example of a useful but partly developed version of the vertebrate eye. Indeed the hagfish is an excellent example of the partly developed vertebrate.
The upside down image argument doesn't cut it at all. The brain simply interprets the nerve signals and it doesn't have any preconceived notion of up for itself.
A better one is the fact that the light sensitive layer is obscured by the blood supply and nerve layer. This is also the reason for the blind spot because the optic nerve must pass through from the inside of the eye. In eagles they do without the blood vessels and provide the nutrient by washing the retina with free blood.
Another funny thing is that the most sensitive part of the eye (the fovea) is almost insensitive to blue. Consequently when looking at a small blue spot at a distance, it either can't be seen or changes colour when it is imaged by the fovea.
Some animals that live in the arctic has ultraviolet vision because snow and ice reflect it.
Love the Woody Allen quote.
There are many examples of very poor engineering in the design of animals but some do it better than others suggesting there would be multiple designers at work. The God that designed the cephalopod (squid and octopus) eye was obviously far more competent and got it the right way round.
