My Debate With a Jehovah's Witness Part 1

So to eliminate any confusion henceforth, Monica is my friend and her husband was on her Windows Live account.

Monica says:

so my husband will be on in just a little k

Scuba Steve says:

Perfect. I'll be here.

Monica says:

k well it was nice saying hi have fun..

Scuba Steve says:

I will.

Monica says:

hello. good evening.

Scuba Steve says:

How are you?

Monica says:

good, yourself?

Scuba Steve says:

I'm doing great. I'm a little disappointed that there's too much artificial light where I'm at, so the meteor shower is barely visible. It's supposed to pick up in a couple hours, so maybe I'll have better luck then.

Monica says:

sounds nice, i have an affinity for all things space-related.

Scuba Steve says:

So I've heard. Congrats, by the way. I know you guys have been married for awhile, but still. Monica and I have been friends for a really long time. It's good to see her happy. You're a very lucky man.

Monica says:

Thank you. I hope you and I will get to know each other a bit during our little chat about big issues. Can i suggest a starting point?

Scuba Steve says:

I'm game for whatever, brother. I've got all the time in the world and I love a healthy conversation.

Monica says:

I will start at the very beginning. "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth..." ...just joking. a little humor there.

Scuba Steve says:

Good one. I actually snorted.

Hit me.

Monica says:

i have a small disclaimer first, do u mind?

Scuba Steve says:

Not at all.

Monica says:

i am very involved in our congregation (JW), as u may have heard, but u may notice my conversations may be a bit on the logical side. is that ok?

Scuba Steve says:

That's fine. Any point of view can be thrown on the table. Most times I maintain a decent level of tact and respectability. I'm arrogant and I say what's on my mind but I try not to get inflammatory unless stones are thrown in my direction first. Saying what you feel is part of being honest and I'm a huge honesty advocate.

Monica says:

There are no stones to throw here. Let's start with the foundation of this chat. I will limit my personal opinions. May I ask what you think FAITH is?

Scuba Steve says:

My definition of faith is trust. I have faith (very little as of late) in humanity. I have faith in certain people in my life. Faith is a belief that has no evidence. I have zero reason to believe that people are inherently good, but I choose to hope for it because to survive as a species we need to put aside our petty differences and work together.

Monica says:

Thanks. The reason I ask is simply this: Most people would also define "faith" similarly. Such as you put it, "Faith is a belief that has no evidence". Would you be surprised to know that the Bible clearly states that faith is the exact opposite?

Scuba Steve says:

Of course it does. The Bible is a subjective book that claims to be the exact word of God, so faith IN God as told by the Bible would be belief based on fact.

Monica says:

The point is this: Hebrews 11:1 clearly states that faith must have a foundation of convincing, provable, and inexorable evidence. You're exactly right in thinking that just because a book says so, that dont make it so. But what about external secular sources?

Scuba Steve says:

External secular sources that say what, exactly? If you say Josephus, I'm calling shenanigans immediately.

Monica says:

hahaha. good one. no josephus talk, i promise. I just want to make sure one thing is quite clear... We will be speaking with clearly logical arguments only. Fact-based reality. Sounds good?

Scuba Steve says:

That's what I'm all about.

Monica says:

Great! Because anything else would be a waste of your time. Topic 1: Does a supreme being (aka Judeo-Christian "God") exist? I am curious as to what reasons do you have for saying no? Care to share?

Scuba Steve says:

There are two answers to this question. 1: No. The Judeo-Christian God doesn't exist anymore than Zeus, Horus, Mithra, Satan, The Flying Spaghetti Monster, etc. 2: I am an atheist because there is no evidence for the existence of a supreme being. If there is one, he is uninvolved with anything that goes on here on this planet. I don't believe in God for the same reason I don't believe in Santa Claus.

Monica says:

how dare you negate the existence of the flying spaghetti monster?!

Scuba Steve says:

It's a shocker, I know. Personally, I worship Samuel L. Jackson. But that's a whole other conversation. I'll save the blasphemy for a more appropriate time.

Monica says:

Well, good scientific investigation tells us that reasonably minded intellectuals "follow the evidence" no matter where it leads. So, let's start with, say... evolution.

what has evoultion proved?

it has proved that species have changed to adapt to their environment over eons of time?

That's actually quite an idealistic oversimplification of the what the evidence actually says.

Scuba Steve says:

First off, let me say that evolution does not disprove 'creation', but it DOES disprove the traditional theological creation stories that have been told over time. The DNA evidence alone is proof of evolution, not to mention the fossils. We are genetically linked with other members of the Great Ape family of primates, 97% (If memory serves) with chimpanzees. Even after that, all forms of life share similar genetic coding. For example, chickens have the genetic code for teeth in their DNA. Darwin's biggest mistake was naming his book "The Origin of Species" instead of "The Gradual Transition and Development of Life on Earth" or something to that effect.

Monica says:

thats true, except u forgot to mention that humans are linked to the great apes thru 97% of the actual 3% of the genome thats actually been decoded. thats quite a large gap.

Scuba Steve says:

Touché, Salesman, touché. That being said, if we are to believe the Bible, there should be 0% similarities.

Monica says:

remember, i'm not talking about the bible anymore. and dont forget that the fossil record does not corroborate step by step, gradual changes in life forms thru eons of time. please, look it up, all the forms of life that have been found remain unchanged and only do new forms of life appear at the start of a new geological era. That's called stasis.

each geological era produces new forms of life that remain virtually unchanged for millions of years. that's why there is such a rush to find "missing links" (so long as they dont end up like the "piltdown man").

Scuba Steve says:

And others change constantly. If we are to believe that we are all connected to the first two humans who were spontaneously poofed into existence, it's peculiar that there are different ethnicities. And about fossils:

Firstly, finding fossils at all is tough. The conditions that had to be present to fossilize bones had to be very precise. All living things are "transitional" life forms. Australopithecus africanus is an example of a transitional fossil.

Monica says:

you are confusing two vastly different ideas, MICRO-evolution (which can be observed and proven to be true) and MACRO-evolution (darwins theory).

Scuba Steve says:

Secondly, evolution is present in so many other forms of life and observable in microevolution that lack of fossilized evidence is easily and accurately supplemented.

Monica says:

For macroevolution to be possible there wuold have to be gradual, unassisted mutations from one species until it created such variation in a group of descendants that an entirely new species would be produced. This has not been proven, even in the slightest.

ASSISTED mutation (by genious geneticists and microbiologists) has been completely unsuccesful for the past 60 years.

Scuba Steve says:

Are you familiar with Stephen Jay Gould? And you don't have to go any farther than Wikipedia to find an enormous list of transitional fossils.

Monica says:

Very. Please look up what they have actually found of these fossils. It can all fit on a large billiard table.

Scuba Steve says:

Not true. And Gould mentioned gravity and how the theory started with Sir Isaac Newton observing things fall. Einstein improved on the theory and gravity as we know it is vastly different from what Newton had originally thought, but that doesn't change the fact that things fall. Darwin's theory had more holes than a barroom dartboard. Today's theory is still incomplete but it does not change the fact that things change over time. Hence the average human height increasing, different ethnicities, and all those transitional fossils and genetic evidence linking all life on Earth that Creationists continually choose to ignore.

Monica says:

There are many things being ignored, such as: If our species evolved from primates to humans, why are there still primates yet NO superior ape-man survived?

Scuba Steve says:

For the same reason that many species of animals survive while others go extinct. Environmental factors, natural disasters, famine, drought, whatever. That's an absurd argument too because modern primates are not our common ancestor.

Monica says:

exactly. the weak die off. those not fit enough to perpetuate the existence of their "lesser" species. you cannot account for the lesser primates surviving yet their superior conterparts (hence, more promising evolutionary intermediates) ended up dying off.

besides, are u aware of how they get the dates for these specimes?

Scuba Steve says:

The primary basis for evolution is on reproductive success. The most fit individuals, which, within given environments will produce the most offspring and the characteristics which provided that success will spread amongst the group. And carbon-14 dating is accurate.

If our understanding of radioactive half-lifes and atomic structure in general was even the slightest bit off, we would have never been able to create atomic bombs or nuclear power. Everything involved in all of these processes is linked in atomic physics.

Monica says:

Steve, you are very well informed about many things, yet there are a few things are not accurate. Monica mentioned to me a few things that you thought about JW's that were ill-informed. That's ok, as long as you are willing to hear the reality of it. By the way, carbon-14 only has a half life of 5730 yrs. The full amount of carbon-14 isotope decays to 0% after 50,000 years. Anything older than that cannot be dated via carbon-14.

The australopithecus africanus is said to have been around at 2-3 million years ago in the Pliocece. Carbon-14 dating does not permit that.

Scuba Steve says:

Have you seen the method of computation that is used?

And are you also saying that the Earth is "young" and not billions of years old?

Monica says:

yes, and it is flat so dont sail too far or you'll fall off. I spoke with someone at ucla about dating processes but i am not sure. please enlighten me.

Scuba Steve says:

C-14 dating can be extended past your 50,000 year mark, but it is not the only radioactive isotope used for dating. It is the most accurate, but not the only one. There are huge lists of others (again, you don't have to go farther than Wikipedia) that are used, that are less accurate, BUT can be used to measure back millions and billions of years. And really, when you're going back a few hundred million years, does it really matter if you're off by 100k? These dates are just general timeframes and not on the dot accurate. That's why you'll see numbers like, "Such and such was dated at BETWEEN 200 and 250 million years old".

Monica says:

very true. i forget that humans are not the standard of measurement on this earth.

Scuba Steve says:

As they shouldn't be. Remember, Noah lived to be 950 or thereabouts.

Maybe HE saw some macro-evolution firsthand. Hahaha.

Monica says:

hahaha! i like that. well, our first conversation turned out to be a good one, eh? i just want you to see that I am not going to come around with arguments that sound like "well, the bible says..."

trust me, you're speaking to one skeptical dude.

Scuba Steve says:

That's comforting. And I'm a tiny bit surprised you're not a supporter of Biblical Inerrancy. When Monica said you were a space geek (I am too. The Universe on History is my favorite show) I knew you'd give a good debate no matter what it was over. We should definitely do this again sometime. It was fun.

Monica says:

It has been. One thing i cant stand is ignorance by choice (I humbly include myself). Thats why i read up on everything i can. I don't mind admitting an idea I have is wrong as long as it can be proved without a doubt. Believe me, the real tough part begins when we get to the "hard sciences" (astronomy, cosmology, origin of life).

Scuba Steve says:

Well, until next time... And we should discuss the Scriptures next time. Also, microbial life on Mars would be a good subject too. I'm gonna run outside and try and catch the tail end of this meteor shower.

Monica says:

oh, sorry i forgot about the time difference. sounds good. its been a pleasure increasing my neurons with you.

Scuba Steve says:

Likewise.