two jehovah's witnesses congregations abolished by courts.
today, 11 february 2016, an administrative lawsuit by the prosecutor of belgorod province for finding the local religious organization of jehovah's witnesses in the city of belgorod to be extremist and liquidated was granted by decision of the belgorod provincial court.
yesterday the provincial court issued a decision on the administrative lawsuit of the provincial prosecutor for liquidation of the local religious organizations of jehovah's witnesses in the city of stary oskol.. the above quote is from one of 5 articles at link.. the fourth article, doctors in court: "jehovah's witnesses died after refusing blood transfusions", gives a synopsis of the hearing in the belgorod provincial court on feb 8.. two doctors were summoned into court as witnesses in order to learn whether religious convictions have affected the state of health of jehovist patients and whether they could be the cause of the death of patients.
I think the blood doctrine is absolutely reprehensible. And I think where a child's safety is concerned the State has every right to step in.
But what Russia is doing here is a blatant violation of religious freedom. If it's true that the JWs promised to move the woman to a different facility after promising to do so - then I think the husband may have a good grounds for a lawsuit. But shutting down an entire church trespasses on everyone's rights.
i think the time to be agnostic is when you have evidence on both sides of a claim.
for example, i'm agnostic about the existence of a historical jesus.
i think a reasonable case can be made that jesus was a man who was turned into a legend over a period of a couple of decades.
You are wrong about what the article shows. It does not state the organic molecule forming a homochiral solution without a catalyst.
-KW
I didn't say it forms without a catalyst. I said "paper specifically shows how an organic system - without the need of an outside catalyst - can form a homochiral solution. It can happen without outside interference."
As Crofty pointed out above it's called an autocatalyst. Systems will always move to their lowest stable energy state. Thus one reaction can be a catalyst for another reaction.
All unguided attempts will always form a racemic mixture in the lab. That is a fact. It's science. It's chemistry.
Life didn't start in a lab or in a clean room did it? It started in the chemically messy outdoors. And just because you don't presently know how a homochiral system first formed in nature doesn't mean we just get to jump to the conclusion that it was an intelligently guided process.
We can't solve one mystery with another mystery. We can't explain one unknown by postulating the existence of another unknown.
i think the time to be agnostic is when you have evidence on both sides of a claim.
for example, i'm agnostic about the existence of a historical jesus.
i think a reasonable case can be made that jesus was a man who was turned into a legend over a period of a couple of decades.
KateWild,
I think the problem is you're only acknowledging the part of the paper that discusses how scientist in the past have achieved the process and you're ignoring the parts that show it can be part of a natural process. The paper specifically shows how an organic system - without the need of an outside catalyst - can form a homochiral solution. It can happen without outside interference. Thus, in specific circumstances, an "intelligence" is not required.
Just because something can be done by intelligent beings - doesn't mean all examples of that thing are therefore the product of intelligent beings. For example, sometimes intelligent beings sculpt rocks into things that look like elephants:
And sometimes blind forces of nature will sculpt rock formations into things that resemble elephants without any outside help.
No intelligence required.
i think the time to be agnostic is when you have evidence on both sides of a claim.
for example, i'm agnostic about the existence of a historical jesus.
i think a reasonable case can be made that jesus was a man who was turned into a legend over a period of a couple of decades.
SBF,
Truth is not a theory. It's a label we apply to claims that meet a specific criteria.
And words don't have intrinsic meanings. They have usages. A word means whatever two or more people agree it means. And the way I'm using the word is how just about every single English speaking person on this planet uses the word.
But no matter, if you mean something OTHER than "claims that match reality" then please explain what you mean by "truth" and why it's relevant to our discussion.
last friday my boy of ten was very late back from school, so i called the school, they called the police, and to cut a long horrible exsperience short he had been helping a younger boy fly his kite.. but what has occurred to me is that when orlando was 5 years old he was totally dependent on mummy and daddy, whilst horses, cats, birds and other animals are born and are independent within days.. so my question on natural selection is, how are we humuns still here?.
the rebel..
Horses and cats are not "independent within a couple of days". Cats take months to be dependent. Horses take years.
Animals that take care of their young have higher survival rates. Thus, they don't have to produce as many offspring.
not being familiar with either, my question is:.
what is the relationship between evolution and atheism?.
i'd love to hear from anyone and everyone, and also from any perspective.. without limiting the conversation in any way, i would of course also appreciate comments that are simple, clear, direct and correct (as i don't have the capacity to do a phd in evolution or atheism)..
One is the explanation for the diverse speciation we see on our planet.
The other is a lack of a belief in a God.
i think the time to be agnostic is when you have evidence on both sides of a claim.
for example, i'm agnostic about the existence of a historical jesus.
i think a reasonable case can be made that jesus was a man who was turned into a legend over a period of a couple of decades.
KateWild,
But doesn't the paper Crofty cited show that using simple organic materials an amino acid itself can amplify the concentration of one particular chiral form of reaction product? Wouldn't that imply the process doesn't have to be guided?
i think the time to be agnostic is when you have evidence on both sides of a claim.
for example, i'm agnostic about the existence of a historical jesus.
i think a reasonable case can be made that jesus was a man who was turned into a legend over a period of a couple of decades.
KateWild,
Let me make sure I'm understanding your position correctly as we're talking about what is more likely. On one hand you have the odds of racemic mixtures proceeding with no guidance. On the other hand you have the odds of an intelligent being guiding the process.
Is that correct?
i think the time to be agnostic is when you have evidence on both sides of a claim.
for example, i'm agnostic about the existence of a historical jesus.
i think a reasonable case can be made that jesus was a man who was turned into a legend over a period of a couple of decades.
Yes, a claim can "match" reality. It can be an accurate descriptor of that which exists. I'm quite shocked you're trying to play hide the ball with the definition of truth. When people use the word "truth" this is what they mean. It's what I mean. It's the definition you'll find in the dictionary.
Under Coherence Theory the Harry Potter novels would be "true" since they're internally consistent. That's not what I'm talking about when I'm addressing God claims. Many God concepts are coherent. That doesn't make them real.
noun, plural truths [trooth z, trooths]
i think the time to be agnostic is when you have evidence on both sides of a claim.
for example, i'm agnostic about the existence of a historical jesus.
i think a reasonable case can be made that jesus was a man who was turned into a legend over a period of a couple of decades.
I assesd the probability of an intelligent being guiding evolution by my study of chemistry.
What in your study of chemistry led you to the conclusion that an intelligent being was guiding evolution?
