I wonder if Alice knows that the Bible she uses had it's canon chosen by The Catholic Church.
She refuses to answer even one of my questions, so maybe someone else here can tell her that.
The God Delusion
by alice.in.wonderland 69 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
OUTLAW
Alice..
You posted me about Gays in the Catholic Church..And..How Gay people do not have position in the WBT$..
I replied to you about Gays in the WBT$.. Leo Greenlees to be specific..
Leo lived,served and had position in Bethel..
This is your Idiot reply to me..
If you want to believe Jehovah's Organization is pedophile paradise you can. You can also believe they have:
It would be nice if you would keep your idiocy to yourself and don't bother me with it....AIW
If you can`t defend your position about Gays in the WBT$ ,just say so..Don`t reply to me about Pedophiles and Satan..
It`s obvious you know very little about the WBT$.....Continuously changing the subject won`t hide that..
................................. ...OUTLAW
-
Soldier77
I'd like to see AIW respond to a post, any post, without copy and pasting "her answer". Because anyone can do that, we want to know personal answers to the questions being asked, not some canned response or someone elses opinion, which is what you are doing by copy and pasting.
So like OUTLAW stated, I call bullshit. If you really are a JW, you are sucked into the mind control big time. I hope you one day on your own terms see the light and the truth about "the Truth".
-
-
alice.in.wonderland
purplesofa, the Creation Book was composed in 1985. Things have changed since then. This is me on the Houston Chronicle:
"As someone who's had the privilege of leading the human genome project, I've had the opportunity to study our own DNA instruction book at a level of detail that was never really possible before. It's also now been possible to compare our DNA with that of many other species. The evidence supporting the idea that all living things are descended from a common ancestor is truly overwhelming. I would not necessarily wish that to be so, as a Bible-believing Christian. But it is so. It does not serve faith well to try to deny that." -Francis Collins
I'm not denying this statement, I'm simply challenging it.That matched DNA fragments in certain species and humans can be found, doesn't necessary mean they're your distant cousins, genetically speaking. If the matched DNA fragments are not “junk DNA,” the instructions are needed to construct other components of cells, such as proteins and RNA molecules. This just means humans and other species share some common biological attributes.
I'm sure you know that DNA is a nucleic acid that contains the genetic instructions used in the development and functioning of all known living organisms. The main role of DNA molecules is the long-term storage of information. Upon execution, the genetic instructions translate into taxonomical differences (structural, anatomical, physiological, etc) in different species.
I don't know how much you know about programming languages, but a single language can be used to write some very different programs. Multiple instances where the exact same code is used in different programs is what led to the development of visual programming language (VPL), any programming language that lets users create programs by manipulating program elements textually and graphically. Graphic symbols represent a textual equivalent. It’s a kind of automation. You drag-and-drop a graphic symbol and it automatically adds a subset of semantics. After the program has been executed, where the exact same code is used in different programs, examining the program after it has been executed for similarities is no different than examining the source code for matching data objects. In this context anyway (Evolution 101). Physical findings, lately made by genetic analysis, just bolster confidence in what we already know; we share some common biological attributes:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11591642
Comparison of human sequences with the DNA of other mammals is an excellent means of identifying functional elements in the human genome. Here we describe the utility of high-density oligonucleotide arrays as a rapid approach for comparing human sequences with the DNA of multiple species whose sequences are not presently available. High-density arrays representing approximately 22.5 Mb of nonrepetitive human chromosome 21 sequence were synthesized and then hybridized with mouse and dog DNA to identify sequences conserved between humans and mice (human-mouse elements) and between humans and dogs (human-dog elements).
Detecting Darwinism at the molecular level would mean observing gene duplication events in macroevolution (for example), not identifying sequences between humans and a dog. Evolutionists seem to think by comparing human sequences, this is evidence we descended from dogs and mice, etc.Genetic markers contain the same "sequences" because they were designed by the same designer. This makes more sense to me than carefully articulated genetic patterns and the associated complex life forms evolving without a designer.
Although molecular biology has been used to hasten research in many fields of biology, it has failed to confirm the evolutionary mechanisms proposed by Darwinian theory. According to Dr. Paul Sharp, "Attempt to detect adaptive evolution at the molecular level have met with little success." Although the study described one of the few molecular successes of evolutionary theory, the trend has been that molecular biology contradicts much of evolutionary theory. (Sharp, P.M.. 1997. In search of molecular Darwinism. Nature 385: 111-112).
600 million years of vertebrate evolution and no transitional species?
-
alice.in.wonderland
"I wonder if Alice knows that the Bible she uses had it's canon chosen by The Catholic Church."
I'm not sure what you mean here but all Christian religions are to some extent Bible based. The Catholic Church also considered Biblical apocrypha or Deuterocanonical as canonical.
-
palmtree67
I mean that the books that are included ( or not included ) in the Bible were chosen ( or rejected ) by the Catholic Church.
There were many books that they chose to not include in the Bible canon, either for political reasons or because they contained teachings that the Church didn't want taught.
My point is: You ( and all other JW's and Christians ) are using a Bible that only contains what the Catholic Church wants you to see.
What do you think are the ramifications of that? Think about that for a bit.
-
purplesofa
You wrote:
Some questions: What do you think of the atheist idol, Richard Dawkins? Jehovah's Witnesses aren't mention in his book or in Bill Maher's Religulous:
Yes, they are mentioned. Thought you might find the material informative and enlightening, if nothing else.
I just find it hard to let pass a statement you made and a discussion topic you started on a book you never read.
purps
-
bohm
alice, you still havent looked at my questions...
-
GromitSK
I was a bit perplexed by the God Delusion. About 90% of it seemed to be about organised religion to me and I couldn't find anything I disagreed with. It did read like a rant a lot of the time and was tiring in places for that reason. It seemed to me that there was very little in it about the existence of a God and it appeared to confuse the issues of religion and the existence of some form of God. I don't think it shed much light on the subject indicated by the title but there was a great deal of factual information in it.
Personally I would like to rest certainty on the issue on fact. If this isn't possible, then I would prefer to defer judgement. Belief is a personal thing however when one wishes to convince others of one's own belief there needs to be a rational explanation of the reason for holding the belief in the first place. I don't think blind faith much value, if any.
