Posts by AlanF

120

Cross or a Stake - which was it?

by KAYTEE in

we were always lead to believe, when we belonged to the jws, that jesus died on a "stake".

was this really true or did he die on a cross as all other religions appear to believe.

if it was a cross, what on earth did the jws get out of saying otherwise.

AlanF

scholar pretendus wrote:

: Alan F . . . [is my] God . . . Nothing amuses me more than to . . . refute what celebrated WT scholars have revealed to the scholarly community and the world . . . [Their] puerile attempts to invalidate [his] arguments fail, [his] use of the classical sources are correct, the lexical meanings of xulon and stauros are correct . . . Celebrated WT scholars . . . have . . . misrepresented source references either currently or previously . . . I know that for many years . . . [their] writers misuse other references . . . Perhaps if you feel so strongly about the matter you should do a PHD thesis on the subject which may serve some benefit to the community or you write to Bethel and make a complaint. . . The simple fact is that [your] writings are simple, written for the world-wide community and these ideas articulate the basic facts of the matter whatever the case and appeal to the heart and mind of the reader. Such a philosophical and methodological approach to research and writing . . . is truth, plain and simple for all races, cultures greatly benefiting. . . I repeat the Society by means of celebrated WT scholars have misrepresented . . . all that apostates is write . . . That is a process that anyone can duplicate if one wishes too but such falsification is a smokescreen designed to conceal the raw facts about matters. Falsification is simply a critiicsm or an alternative viewpoint or opinion and proves nothing. Leolaia: Your cross vs stake hypothesis . . . contains . . . facts that [validate] the raw lexical and traditional data. You have . . . proved that the classical material negates the case put by by [the Society]. You need to . . . present the material for peer review and have it published in a journal.

For once I agree with you, scholar pretendus!

AlanF

31

JWs and Dinasours

by Jeannine in

i apologize if this question has been answered on this board previously.

what is the jws position on dinasours?

according to jws, when did dinasours roam the earth ?

AlanF

: And at least back then, Schroeder was the "science man" among them.

Which says a great deal.

AlanF

120

Cross or a Stake - which was it?

by KAYTEE in

we were always lead to believe, when we belonged to the jws, that jesus died on a "stake".

was this really true or did he die on a cross as all other religions appear to believe.

if it was a cross, what on earth did the jws get out of saying otherwise.

AlanF

Repeat this 1,000 times, scholar pretendus: "Richard Nixon was not a crook. Richard Nixon was not a crook. . . "

After 1,000 repetitions you will believe it.

AlanF

157

Evolutionary establishment tactics

by hooberus in

wednesday evenings (august 24th) fox news program "the oreilly factor" featured an interview life after "intelligent design" with dr. richard sternberg, editor, of the peer-reviewed journal "proceedings of the biological society of washington.

" dr. sternberg's home page discusses the recriminations he faced by certain members of the evolutionary establishment after publishing an arcticle by another person advocating the possibilty of intelligent design in the peer reviewed journal.

http://www.rsternberg.net/

AlanF

scholar pretendus wrote:

: Your response was predictable devoid of substance.

You're funny, Neil. Your response here is "predictable devoid of substance." Do you have dyslexia or something?

Predictably, your response contains nothing whatsoever by way of response to my specific comments. This shows that you're unable to respond to them.

: There is no singular theory of evolution

As opposed to a singulatr theory of evolution?

Don't you read your posts in the "reply" window before hitting the "submit" button?

: but theories of evolution faddish within science at the present time

Faddish? LOL! Some 150 years of faddsihness.

: which are under attack from the ID movement scientifically speaking, not politically speaking.

Yes, politically and religously speaking, ID is devoid of scientific content. It has produced no useful results at all. If you disagree, then by all means, show us some useful results.

: To date science has not presented any missing links to fill the gaps within the biological and fossil record although they have paraded many candidates to fill the gaps but all have failed including invertebrates, vertebrates, primates and human life forms. The gaps remain as large as ever.

Nonsense. Your claim is made out of sheer ignorance, or sheer dishonesty. Hundreds of transitional forms are documented in scientific literature. A brief survey can be found in the "Transitional Vertebrates FAQ" at the talkorigins website: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

: Cosmology cannot account for the beginning of the universe

Oh? By the same token, theology cannot account for the beginning of the Christian God.

: or origin and no biology cannot account for the origin of life.

Well it also seems to be the case that no theology cannot account for the origin of God. So there!

: The big and esential mystery remains.

I agree. Why did God create those vile predators?

: The Creator and Creation books are well sourced

Let's be a bit more specific here. The Creation book has a lot of source references, to be sure. But as I've documented in the link I gave, many of them are misunderstood or simply misrepresented, or plagiarized from young-earth creationist sources. The Creator book's references are much less extensive than those in the Creation book, and I'm sure that that's deliberate, so as to make it harder for critics to expose the underlying dishonesty of the authors. The fact that many source references are deliberately not stated is proved by the fact that the Italian edition of the Creator book contains much more extensive source references than the English version, because the Italian government requires that all books published for Italian consumption contain full references. If it can be done in the later Italian versions, it can certainly be done in the original English versions.

: and well argued with its compelling logic arising from current scrientific research from varied sources with the scrientific community.

LOL! All of these "varied sources with the scrientific community", whether you understand it or not, are ID sympathizers, or have been misrepresented.

: The writers of such publications are not known and unknowable but are dedicated men who have a love of truth and God.

LOL! Neil, you're killing me! In 1997, when I was in New York for my brother's wedding, I went to Brooklyn Bethel and asked for Harry Peloyan to come down to the lobby of the 25 Columbia Heights headquarters building. He eventually did, and our meeting was quite revealing as well as entertaining. Peloyan reluctantly admitted to being the compiler of the Creation book (I had already confirmed this in discussions with a number of former Bethelites who had worked closely with Peloyan), so I have direct confirmation that he was the author. Do you really think that Peloyan's admission, backed by the testimony of at least four former Bethelites, was false?

: The ID hypothesis is indeed science and not religion because it simply forces science to ackowledge what is naturally known and understood instinctively and by reason alone.

LOL! The argument from ignorance, personified.

: Such reason alone compels one to believe that the world is of design and therefore there must be a Designer.

Ditto.

: Such maxims of truth are recognized universally by all philosophers and thinkers.

Abject nonsense. Most philosophers, for whatever reason, reject the notion of a Christian Creator God as promoted by IDers.

: Evolution recognizes the same truth but in a naturalistic form using a different label chance or randomness. Charles Darwin was a theist who believed in a Creator or Designer well expressed by William Paley and the modern day Richard Dawkins.

Are you for real? Prove your contention by some non-misrepresented quotations of Darwin.

: Evolution or evolutionism is simply a theory or hypothesis which is unproven or unprovable by the scientific method. The ID hypotheis is well demonstrated by the scientific method by direct observatiuon and repeatabilty.

Really. Can you point us to any experiments that show God in action creating some species? Can you perform repeatable experiments showing ID in action?

Neil, you're so laughably ignorant, it's beyond funny.

: Yes. it is good that you tremble at the knees of celebrated WT scholars who gy means of the fine literature are able to educate the ignorant masses.

My comments were entirely tongue-in-cheek, if you hadn't noticed. And I, "gy means of the fine literature" produced by the Society, as well as other commentators, have conclusively shown that these so-called "celebrated WT scholars" are nothing more than nincompoops who merely pretend to be scholars and are able to perpetrate a hoax on their followers by means of religious deception on a massive scale.

: No, the account of Genesis combines theology, philosophy and science as a perfect synthesis recognizing micro evolution with in kinds to account for the upward progression of athe natural order.

I see that you've been reading your ID literature.

: Science and religion have always coexisted together throughout history right up to the present day despite the hysteria of Darwinism.

Duh.

: Such a synthesis or perennial philosophy properly accounts for the chaos and disorder in the world as a consequence of sin.

Really. So you figure that lions kill Cape buffalo because Adam ate a forbidden fruit? And Komodo Dragons kill their prey by a biologically poisonous bite, which results in a week or so of painful deterioration and death, because Adam disobeyed God?

: The days of creation are believed to be

By who?

: periods of time with the seventh day, a duration of 7000 years.

That makes no sense. If you meant to say, "periods of time within the seventh day," I could understand you. Is that what you meant? If so, then it's apparent that you believe that Genesis' creative days were all 7,000 years long. You failed to answer my direct questions on this, but your beliefs are obvious.

: The predatory behaviour of the animal world exist in the context of a world of sin, disorder and chaos contrary to the Edenic world of harmony,perfection and order.

I see. So chimpanzees kill and eat various monkeys because Adam ate a piece of fruit he wasn't supposed to. Yes, that makes a lot of sense.

: The theory of evolution as currently presented presents a framework that has some links which support both the Bible and the ID science in that all life is complex, arose from a point of origin and reveals a symmetry and purpose. Where it clashes is that removes the presence of a personal and loving Creator.

Most of your statement is incoherent nonsense, not deserving of a reply. I'll leave it at that.

: I hope these remarks help you to find truth.

Oh, yes, Neil. You've convinced me beyond all doubt that the God of the JWs is a fine, moral being. You've thoroughly convinced me that he, for reasons inscrutable and that I must not question, created nasty predators. I'm a Christian now, and I believe wholeheartedly that the Watchtower Society's leaders were appointed by the holy spirit to tell the truth, and nothing but the truth, so help them God, to mankind. Neil, I wish that other JWs had the power of reasoning and convincing that you do. I will be rebaptized at the next convenient assembly.

AlanF

49

Very Bad Apologetics For Honest Seekers

by AlanF in

god had no beginning, so god did not need to be made.. .

if our local space-time universe is uncreated, then of course it is meaningless to ask who created it.

of course, everything that had a beginning had a beginner.

AlanF

Utopian Reformist said:

: All three threads . . . are extremely informative and some of the best examples of raw, unplugged, human entertainment, the kind you can only get here at JWD.

We aim to please and amuse.

I admit that there's much to be amused about when dealing with religious fanatics. Much like dealing with Flat-Earthers.

AlanF

120

Cross or a Stake - which was it?

by KAYTEE in

we were always lead to believe, when we belonged to the jws, that jesus died on a "stake".

was this really true or did he die on a cross as all other religions appear to believe.

if it was a cross, what on earth did the jws get out of saying otherwise.

AlanF

scholar pretendus wrote:

: Celebrated WT scholars do not and have not misrepresented source references either currently or previously

Of course they do. Leolaia, Narkissos, I and many others have documented it copiously. The fact that you don't accept the Society's reprehensible practices mean nothing more than that you're a standard JW cult member.

I documented your own lies in another thread, where you claimed that Liddell & Scott said one thing about the meaning of stauros, and I showed that it said the opposite. Like father, like son.

AlanF

157

Evolutionary establishment tactics

by hooberus in

wednesday evenings (august 24th) fox news program "the oreilly factor" featured an interview life after "intelligent design" with dr. richard sternberg, editor, of the peer-reviewed journal "proceedings of the biological society of washington.

" dr. sternberg's home page discusses the recriminations he faced by certain members of the evolutionary establishment after publishing an arcticle by another person advocating the possibilty of intelligent design in the peer reviewed journal.

http://www.rsternberg.net/

AlanF

scholar pretendus wrote:

: I seems to me that you simply follow the dumb theories of evolutionists who not only have a coherent singulatr theory of evolution

Really. What, exactly, is "a coherent singulatr theory of evolution"?

You're so incoherent that you don't realize that when you point a finger at others for incoherence, you've got three others pointing back at you. LOL!

: but as yet cannot create life, have not found a single missing link

Sure they have. Define "missing link" and I'll prove it.

: and account for the beginning of the cosmos.

Are you saying that they can or cannot account for it? Please try to maintain coherence through connectives.

: Celebrated WT scholars through the FDS of loyal, devoted and humble people have published the beautiful, scientific and simple Creator book.

This book appears to have been another creation of the late and lamented Harry Peloyan, for many years the editor-in-chief of Awake! and the author of the atrociously bad and dishonest 1985 Creation book. The Creator book is a lot better than the Creation book, but relies almost exclusively on the arguments (often unattributed or without proper source references) made by various so-called Intelligent Design proponents. Therefore, it makes the same mistakes as the latter do. For an extensive debunking of the 1985 Creation book, see here: http://www.geocities.com/osarsif/ce01.htm For a somewhat dated review of the 1998 Creator book, see here: http://www.geocities.com/osarsif/creator.htm

: This fine publication well documents current scientific theories which are now introducing a new paradigm of science, the ID movement which threatens to displace theistic and atheistic evolutionary pseudo science which is myhtology.

LOL! ID is in no sense science. It is religious dogma masquerading as science, as proved by the many statements made by ID proponents that their real purpose in promoting ID is to restore the traditional place of conservative religion in the U.S. ID has produced no usable results, and it never will, because it's merely a sophisticated argument from ignorance, and a retreat to the old "God of the gaps" religious philosophy.

: The evolutionists in Australia are frightened by the introduction into this country of the new DVD Unlocking The Mystery Of Life which has the scientic community tembling at the knees . . .

Just like I tremble at my knees at the superior scholastic skills of Celebrated Watchtower Scholars! LOL!

Actually, if the situation in Oz is similar to that in the U.S., the thing that most scientists are afraid of is the political clout of masses of ignorant voters who might easily be swayed by ID's religious dogma, and who might be able to severely damage science education and produce conditions that in the long run would surely ruin the U.S. as a scientific leader.

: The ID hypothesis acknowledges the simple scientific statements in Genesis that God made all things beautiful in his own way, manner, time and purpose.

See? Even you understand that ID is religion, not science.

: Evolution at its crudest is simply a mirror image of creation but in a demonic form because evolution is simply change and that is what the Genesis demonstates in the upward progression of life.

Really. But wait! Genesis has several important pieces of "creation" out of order. How do you account for that? And how long were the "creative days"? 7,000 years? A hundred million years? Were they of equal length? Let's see if you can support your answer with the Bible.

: The Creator is Jehovah revealed in the Creation of the World also revealed in His Word, the Bible.

Ok, assuming that's correct, how do you account for the existence of predators? Did Jehovah created the complex poison apparatus of snakes, spiders, scorpions and so forth, or did this evolve? How about the basic predatory instincts of these animals? Did Jehovah install these into the genetic makeup of his creatures after the Fall in Eden? Careful now, these are trick questions.

AlanF

120

Cross or a Stake - which was it?

by KAYTEE in

we were always lead to believe, when we belonged to the jws, that jesus died on a "stake".

was this really true or did he die on a cross as all other religions appear to believe.

if it was a cross, what on earth did the jws get out of saying otherwise.

AlanF

LOL at scholar pretendus! Both he and Watchtower writers demonstrably must resort to gross misrepresentation of source references to prove their claims. Anyone who does this is not only a liar, but knows that their basic claim is false -- otherwise they wouldn't know what to misrepresent. Both the Society and scholar pretendus have sometimes claimed that some reference says exactly the opposite of what it really says.

AlanF

157

Evolutionary establishment tactics

by hooberus in

wednesday evenings (august 24th) fox news program "the oreilly factor" featured an interview life after "intelligent design" with dr. richard sternberg, editor, of the peer-reviewed journal "proceedings of the biological society of washington.

" dr. sternberg's home page discusses the recriminations he faced by certain members of the evolutionary establishment after publishing an arcticle by another person advocating the possibilty of intelligent design in the peer reviewed journal.

http://www.rsternberg.net/

AlanF

On the subject of internet trolls, Wikipedia has some interesting comments ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll ):

Etymology
The contemporary use of the term first appeared on Usenet groups in the late 1980s. It is widely thought to be a diminutive of the phrase "trolling for suckers," itself derived from the sports-fishing technique of trolling, which can be compared with trawling of which it is a near homophone.
The word likely gained currency because of its conveniently apt second meaning, drawn from the "trolls" portrayed in Scandinavian folklore and children's tales, which are often ugly, obnoxious creatures bent on wickedness and mischief. The image of the troll under the bridge in the Three Billy Goats Gruff emphasizes the rootedness of the troll in a physical environment, dislike of outsiders, particularly those who intend to graze on or in his or her domain.
The troll is almost always a male figure and so may parallel the mythological figure of the witch. The use of these labels for people, as opposed to mythological characters in stories, may have its origins in the conflicts between the pagan religions and Christianity in the middle ages. People who continued to practice the "old ways" were often isolated and identified as dealing with dark forces, as "witches" - and perhaps also as "trolls".
Scientific view
Trolling can be described as a breaching experiment, which, because of the use of an alternate persona, allows for normal social boundaries and rules of etiquette to be tested or otherwise broken, without serious consequences.
This may be part of an attempt to test the limits of some discourse, or to identify reactive personalities. By removing identities and histories from the situation, leaving only the discourse, some scientists believe that it is possible to run social engineering experiments using troll methods.
However, few believe that troll organizations are engaged in science, and a few scattered individuals with no particular method or thesis cannot be described as scientists. They might however be engaged in research.
Political view
Some authorities consider the term "troll", when used to label a person, as being roughly equivalent to "riff-raff" or "scum" or any other term that dismisses a person as being unworthy of being heard for reasons that are not directly stated.
Many - perhaps most - people labelled "trolls" are simply being called a name by someone else in the course of a religious, political or other ordinary type of dispute. In other words they are labelled as a "troll" for acting as a dissident or heretic. To characterize systems administrators or moderators as "the troll who got there first" is not entirely inaccurate: many debates between those with and without administrative or legal powers seem simply to resemble a heated, personal, argument. On the Internet in particular, the holding of technological powers (such as the power to ban users or block IP addresses) is not necessarily a sign of any superior political or moral judgement.
As with similar pejorative labels, a group of people who are assigned the label can turn it around to create group identity and the power to collectively resist: Individual outsiders using the label on someone become targets for a collective response. Insiders may use the label without consequence, usually in a joking or disarming way. For instance:
Self-proclaimed "trolls" may style themselves as devil's advocates, gadflies or "culture jammers," challenging the dominant discourse and assumptions of forum discussions in an attempt to break the status quo of groupthink - the belief system that prevails in their absence. Wikipedia itself has a project to counter systemic bias.
Critics have claimed that genuine "devil's advocates" generally identify themselves as such out of respect for etiquette and courtesy, while trolls may dismiss etiquette and courtesy altogether.
However, the history of anonymous expression in political dissent is long and honourable. The Federalist Papers, for instance, were anonymously authored. Without the public discourse on the controversial contents of the U.S. Constitution, ratification would likely have taken much longer as individuals worked through the issues. The Declaration of Independence, however was not anonymous. If it had been unsigned, it might well have been considered "trolling" by King George III and been therefore that much less effective. In The Infrastructure of Democracy, John Perry Barlow, Joichi Ito, and other US bloggers express a very strong support for anonymous editing (though not "trolling" necessarily) as one of the basic requirements of open politics as conducted on the Internet.
However, a view is not "political" until it is shared by many other people. Most people who take the political view of trolling advocate some form of faction identification, so that biases and relevant discourses can at least be comprehended by opponents of the troll groups' political view. A good example is SOLLOG, a religious movement that encourages trolling, but makes its rationale and doctrine easily accessible to anyone interested.

Forscher's self-described activities in this thread clearly fit the traditional internet use of the word "troll", as shown by the bolded statements above. I merely applied these usages to his description of himself. Note his comment in his most recent post: "I used Alan to make the point and he fell right into the trap." The second bolded section above directly applies.

Simon, of course, as the owner of this board, you can define certain words to mean whatever you please, and act accordingly. But I used the word "troll" in a standard manner to describe someone whose own words precisely fit traditional internet usage. You might carefully read the views expressed above under "Political view".

Forscher, you give yourself far too much credit. Anyone can pretend to be someone he is not and fool people on discussions forums. Really, it's not hard to imitate the braindeadness of the typical JW or Fundamentalist apologist.

AlanF

49

Very Bad Apologetics For Honest Seekers

by AlanF in

god had no beginning, so god did not need to be made.. .

if our local space-time universe is uncreated, then of course it is meaningless to ask who created it.

of course, everything that had a beginning had a beginner.

AlanF

Shining Brain said:

: I feel badly for you, Alan. Some day your arrogance will catch up to you. I hear that it already has and I don't wish to air that at all.

Well please do air your concerns, so that all readers may benefit.

I have nothing to hide from anyone, and you have my permission to air whatever it is that you've heard.

Of course, if it turns out that your silly insinuations are just that, you're going to be mightily embarrassed.

Of course, you're just blowing smoke, as usual.

But let's see how this works out.

AlanF