Posts by Fisherman

105

Does anyone think Jehovah is protecting the org. despite all the talk about THE ARC ?

by tor1500 in

jw
friends

i've been thinking this for a while.

even before the arc scandal.

it seems no matter what, the org.

Fisherman

It is axiomatic that JW have a policy not to report crimes that are confessed to the church to the police UNLESS mandated by law.The JW do not have any malicious motive, in fact their motive is good when they try to help sinners but the church is made up of imperfect men inspite of their good intentions. That means that sometimes they could make a mistake. And that is why JW do not feel the WT is challenged spiritually by the RC. They trust in God and if there is any agenda behind it or WT enemies are using legal proceedings to retaliate against the WT, if that is the case, they trust in God. If WT is doing something that God does not want, JW trust that God will correct the matter but JW believe that God protects the org. They go through all the steps and do all they can and do all they can legally to defend, but after that, they leave it in God's hand.

JW do not have an army and they do not use legal proceedings or political power or any other means whatsoever to get back at entities or to protect themselves. They trust in God's protection. So, WATCH OUT!

129

Overlapping Generation

by pandorasbox1914 in

the september 2015 broadcast had david splane explain matthew 24:34 “truly, i say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place”.

his explanation of this scripture was by means of a chart to indicate an overlapping generation.. .

no scripture was used to show the overlapping generation concept, and as a result it makes no sense.. to illustrate how crazy this concept is, look at the lyrics of the song my generation.. my generation.

Fisherman

Many years ago I played chess with a weaker opponent, and in the end game I had 5 or 6 queens on the board.( I do not remember exactly how many) Anyway, you should have seen the smile on his face when the game ended in stalemate. But during the game and before the promotions of so many pawns, I found it necessary to move my knight to another square when I saw it was in danger. After making the move, I remarked "The knight retreats." He responded by exclaiming: "The knight doesn't retreat. It roams the board! I thought to myself: "What a brilliant observation!" I had never saw it that way before and my view of the knight in a chess game changed forever.

True story

70

When is a theory 'just a theory'?

by HB in

the titles of cofty's excellent recent posts are all preceeded by the words "evolution is a fact...".

richard dawkins is encouraging people to use the term 'fact' in relation to evolution, especially when debating with creationists as the word 'theory' is confusing to many, and the latter often takes the discussion off on an often unproductive tangent.

the following may be of interest, it's from the bbc website - part of a regular series of articles called 'the vocabularist', discussing the origin and meaning of words: .

Fisherman

credit where it is due.

I do not discredit your thought provoking posts on science. I was planning to post a statement saying something about that before -not that I agree with your arguments or conclusions.

I suppose that anyone sitting in the hot seat in Nuremberg could not feel cold blooded to evidence and same goes for anyone who's faith could possibly be destroyed with bitter challenging evidence. I do not feel that way about evolution. There is a lot of stuff to read and analyze in your posts on evolution.

There are ONLY 2 methods that I use that convinces my mind that something is a fact. 1. Observe, hit with a hammer. Measure. 2. Test. Same results time and time and time and time again.There is a dangerous fallacy in 2 and that is that same results will result for all conditions and another danger is conclusions from and about the results except for the results of the experiment.Even a talking horse would have to measure up to that fact determining standard.

I believe that DNA test shows paternity because it has been proven that the test accurately does so, but not because I understand the mechanics of the test. Logic tells me that if a male human clone took the test, the test would fail to accurately show paternity for that set of conditions.

I would like to ask you a few questions.

1 Since brevity is the soul of wit... briefly list the strongest evidence that show that humans evolved from any non human.

70

When is a theory 'just a theory'?

by HB in

the titles of cofty's excellent recent posts are all preceeded by the words "evolution is a fact...".

richard dawkins is encouraging people to use the term 'fact' in relation to evolution, especially when debating with creationists as the word 'theory' is confusing to many, and the latter often takes the discussion off on an often unproductive tangent.

the following may be of interest, it's from the bbc website - part of a regular series of articles called 'the vocabularist', discussing the origin and meaning of words: .

Fisherman

Read some books!

I should read some books to make me foney bolony qualified cut and paste to refute or advocate evolution-like cofty!

70

When is a theory 'just a theory'?

by HB in

the titles of cofty's excellent recent posts are all preceeded by the words "evolution is a fact...".

richard dawkins is encouraging people to use the term 'fact' in relation to evolution, especially when debating with creationists as the word 'theory' is confusing to many, and the latter often takes the discussion off on an often unproductive tangent.

the following may be of interest, it's from the bbc website - part of a regular series of articles called 'the vocabularist', discussing the origin and meaning of words: .

Fisherman

Of course it can be falsified. Every scientific theory is falsifiable otherwise it isn't science.

Argue with those that disagree.

No there isn't. That just something that creationists tell each other. It demonstrates a woeful understanding of basic science.
All life is a temporary local reversal of entropy. There is no conflict between evolution and entropy.

cofty the full of bolony pseudo-scientist that knows.

I just accept it as the fact it is.

Double talk for believe. Accepting it as fact does not make it such.

knowing absolutely nothing about it

Funny what cofty claims to know about what others know and what disciplines they have.

70

When is a theory 'just a theory'?

by HB in

the titles of cofty's excellent recent posts are all preceeded by the words "evolution is a fact...".

richard dawkins is encouraging people to use the term 'fact' in relation to evolution, especially when debating with creationists as the word 'theory' is confusing to many, and the latter often takes the discussion off on an often unproductive tangent.

the following may be of interest, it's from the bbc website - part of a regular series of articles called 'the vocabularist', discussing the origin and meaning of words: .

Fisherman

please don't bother replying with more of your word soup

You sound like an alligator. You are an all mouth google cut and paster: No one has to make any statement, but if they do, what they say is subject to challenge.

70

When is a theory 'just a theory'?

by HB in

the titles of cofty's excellent recent posts are all preceeded by the words "evolution is a fact...".

richard dawkins is encouraging people to use the term 'fact' in relation to evolution, especially when debating with creationists as the word 'theory' is confusing to many, and the latter often takes the discussion off on an often unproductive tangent.

the following may be of interest, it's from the bbc website - part of a regular series of articles called 'the vocabularist', discussing the origin and meaning of words: .

Fisherman

lead evidence based lives

And unlike cofty, on a scientific level I am not qualified to advocate or refute evolution . All I can do is to decide for myself whether I choose to believe it or not. It is very easy for a judge or a jury or a prosecutor, enjoying immunity, to decide on something when their lives do not depend on it -but if it did ?! -Romans 1:20

70

When is a theory 'just a theory'?

by HB in

the titles of cofty's excellent recent posts are all preceeded by the words "evolution is a fact...".

richard dawkins is encouraging people to use the term 'fact' in relation to evolution, especially when debating with creationists as the word 'theory' is confusing to many, and the latter often takes the discussion off on an often unproductive tangent.

the following may be of interest, it's from the bbc website - part of a regular series of articles called 'the vocabularist', discussing the origin and meaning of words: .

Fisherman

No confusion now.

That may be the case -or maybe not if evolution comes up with something new

70

When is a theory 'just a theory'?

by HB in

the titles of cofty's excellent recent posts are all preceeded by the words "evolution is a fact...".

richard dawkins is encouraging people to use the term 'fact' in relation to evolution, especially when debating with creationists as the word 'theory' is confusing to many, and the latter often takes the discussion off on an often unproductive tangent.

the following may be of interest, it's from the bbc website - part of a regular series of articles called 'the vocabularist', discussing the origin and meaning of words: .

Fisherman

In every other area of life we have to weigh up the evidence.

Or measure, or prove with experimentation: Case in point: The sun is a fact. Case in point: Experiment shows that the relationship between something and the sun under these conditions is always the case.

In this sense evolution has been "proven" beyond all reasonable doubt.

There is a difference between preponderance of the evidence and to prove beyond all reasonable doubt: There may be so much evidence to support something is true that it can be accepted as true (if magnitude of supporting evidence was the determining standard) or on the other hand, the reasonable possibility of something not being true inspite of all of the supporting evidence is what reasonable doubt means ( in the US criminal cases are tried with reasonable doubt as the deciding standard and not amount of evidence)

there is nothing that will convince unreasonable people.

But not agreeing with a conclusion or theory does not make one unreasonable. And there are reasons why not everyone is convinced that humanity evolved from the same ancestor as animals inspite of all of the evidence that science uses to support that conclusion.

70

When is a theory 'just a theory'?

by HB in

the titles of cofty's excellent recent posts are all preceeded by the words "evolution is a fact...".

richard dawkins is encouraging people to use the term 'fact' in relation to evolution, especially when debating with creationists as the word 'theory' is confusing to many, and the latter often takes the discussion off on an often unproductive tangent.

the following may be of interest, it's from the bbc website - part of a regular series of articles called 'the vocabularist', discussing the origin and meaning of words: .

Fisherman

Someone who rejects evolution for supposed lack of evidence (which is really just lack of knowledge...

Google =

To Keith Stewart Thomson, the word evolution has at least three distinct meanings:[8]

The general sense of change over time.
All life forms have descended with modifications from ancestors in a process of common descent.
The cause or mechanisms of these process of change, that are examined and explained by evolutionary theories.

Thomson remarks: "Change over time is a fact, and descent from common ancestors is based on such unassailable logic that we act as though it is a fact.
Biologists consider it to be a scientific fact that evolution

I think that there is a difference between fact and conclusions. Anyway that it just something that I cut and pasted from wiki encyclopedia.

More Google= cofty

There is such strong quantitative support for the second that scientists regard common descent as being as factual as the understanding that in the Solar System the Earth orbits the Sun,

Bolony. I remember an article in National Geographic(I think it was) about 10 years ago that stated that DNA confirmed that "Neanderthal man" did not breed with homo sapiens. A couple of years later I read another article somewhere that said that they did. In fact anyone taking a dna test now can see some Neanderthal in their lineage. You figure it out. Where neanderthal humans?

as the understanding

Do you see the logical fallacy in the comparison above?

I am not qualified to advocate or to refute "evolution." Evolution is working system that science uses as a patern to predict. There is controversy whether it can be falsified or not. There is also controversy about evolution apparently contradicting the second law of thermodynamics. There is also controversy whether or not evolution can coexist with enthropy. Some people choose to believe in evolution.