apparently our numerous apostate 'press releases' have incited this jdub to do his own.
why worldly religion will end
(matthew 15:14) do you want to come to an end with babylon the great?
BABYLON THE GREAT has fallen! Yes, from Jehovah's standpoint the world empire of false religion has fallen.
What a nice way of proving anything you want to prove as Jehovah's sole channel of communication. Now who else can know "Jehovah's point of view"?
Pole
I've never undertood the Anglo-Saxon fart joke culture.
Have fun.
Pole
why are we here?
what is the purpose of life?
an atheist has many questions but no answers.. .
How many words would the monkey type if no one had designed any alphabet or keyboard or computer and he had to beat on the dirt?
This is an embarrassing question.
Pole
there were a few interesting threads recently on evolution/creationism.
some posters seem to have argued it would be fair to have creationism taught at schools.
(see abadon's thread).
hooberus,
Let me repeat that I'm not sure what's left when exclude evolution bashing from creationist accounts.
Speaking as a straightforward Biblical creationist I would say that what's "left" is a model of earth's history that creationists believe reflects the truth of how the world and its life came about.
So what does this model boil down to in scientific terms? What can be said about the act of creation in scientific terms, apart from a bunch of genesis-like statements, such as: "and on the second day God created amoebas".
I guess this problem is felt by the creationists you've pointed me to as manifested in the "biotic messaging" claims?
If so would you care to explain the biotic message carried by malicious viruses in one of your threads, instead of discussing even more "evidence against evolution"? (Sorry to repeat this again - but I'd interested to know how the adherents of intelligent design account for such cases.)
How can a "model of creation" be studied and verified if it becomes inherently mystical the moment we're done with bashing evolution?
This model explains homologies (old definition), homoplasies, sharred biological universals, design in living things, vast global strata sediments, many fossil patterns, observations of creatures reproducing within basic kinds, etc.
Fine, I guess it sounds good enough, but you're enumerating what you consider to be the material evidence for mystical creation. How does that explain the "mechanism" of creation? Or would you agree that creationism ultimately denies the scientific methodology by leading us in an apparently scientific fashion (90% of the time it's basically concerned with picking holes in evolution) to the unknowable act of creation?
Cheers,
Pole
for believers, if god uses the bible to communicate factual information, then why four gospels?
and why are they not in harmony with each other?
why not send down one record of the life of jesus as it really happened?
Because 4 is a number denoting the completeness of truth. And it has been confirmed in secret "biotic messages" in nature. God's chariot was carried by four beasts. Most of them had four legs (except the eagle and somehow the man - but man is easy to imagine crawling)!
Almost forgot - there are four seasons of the year where I live. The living world is full of biotic messages confirming the validity of the number of the gospels.
Pole
there were a few interesting threads recently on evolution/creationism.
some posters seem to have argued it would be fair to have creationism taught at schools.
(see abadon's thread).
El Blanko:
Dr Dino seems to be another case in point with topics such as:
"The Dangers of Evolution (2/2)"
"More Reasons (Why Evolution is Stupid)"
It's like trying to prove evolution by arguing creationism is stupid. It's only a very small part of the story.
Let me repeat that I'm not sure what's left when exclude evolution bashing from creationist accounts. Oh yeah, here is one interesting topic by Dr Dino:
"The Garden of Eden (2/2)". Looks like a piece of hard creationist science.
Pole
ive just left the jws well got dfed a month ago!
but family want me back so im trying to prove to myself that it isnt true, top get the strength not to go back,i heard the 607 date may be false, can anyone show me about that, i know exactly what the jws say and cant believe the intial date is wrong, is it?
Or was it his propaganda minister, Goebbels?
there were a few interesting threads recently on evolution/creationism.
some posters seem to have argued it would be fair to have creationism taught at schools.
(see abadon's thread).
hooberus,
If persons are really interested in the coherent scientific message that creationists have to tell the world then I recommend the following publications:
from the first link:
http://www1.minn.net/~science/about.htm
Half the book dismantles evolutionary illusions, such as:
The other half of the book is more controversial. The book doesn't just take shots at evolution, it actively proposes a scientifically testable creation theory to take its place. The new theory overturns Darwin's and Gould's arguments about "imperfect" designs, and most notably, the evolutionist's central argument ? the nested pattern of life.
Looks like half of the time is spent on dismantling evolution. And the other half is about things such as "overturning evolutionist's central argument". Still largely about dismantling evolution. Here is what seems to be different to me:
The central claims of the theory are simple and plausible: Life was reasonably designed for survival, and to convey a message that tells where life came from. The message can be described in two parts:
- Life was designed to look like the product of a single designer.
- Life was designed to resist all other explanations.
In other words, evolutionary theory helped shape the pattern of life ? with a reverse impact. Life was intricately designed to resist all evolutionary explanations, not just Darwin's or Lamarck's.
This looks like a bit of a joke, although it may just be the wording of the review that makes it look like it. Does it mean God/Creator took great care to disprove Darwin and Lamarck? Does that mean all evolutionists are utterly dishonest? Does that mean God predicted "apostasy" from when he started making the first virus? (BTW, I wonder what "biotic message" viruses were supposed to convey). Is there no easier way to resist all evolutionary explanations (or rather their philosophical implications)?
Anyway, I'll be happy to comment on one of your installements when you are finished with refuting evolution and start conveying "the biotic message". Shall we start with:
"What is the real biotic message of the Ebola virus?"
Metaphysics confused with physics again.
Q,
(and many on this board seem to suggest quite strongly that evolution points clearly to NO intelligent design when it says nothing of the sort - it explains mechanistic processes
I don't think that is the case. I don't waste my time proving beyond doubt that there is no Higher Intelligence just because evolution seems largely plausible. There is no scientific theology of evolution. The problem is that there seems to be no science of creation.
Scientific thought does best when it can freely look at all scenarios and stop sorting them by dogma - creationism does not require the God of any particular religion (that part can be kept for RE and Church) but it can recognise the existence of intellignece other than our own.
I guess some people have problems with partly agreeing with a person who seems to be plain wrong. Do you recognise the existence of intelligence other than our own by refuting bits and pieces of evolution?
Or can anybody please explain the biotic message of the mosquito?
Pole of the "having a hard time with gnats" class
this question has most likely been asked before but i must've missed it.
any hoo, just wondering.
as for mine, it shows that i am a good for nothing smurf who loves boobies i guess...
pole,
what aren't you?
LOL. Well, I'm not John of the book of Revelation. (Neither am I Charlton Heston or J Brown). And a couple of other people/things that might be associated with the avatar.
Now pepheuga, what are you not?
Pole
this question has most likely been asked before but i must've missed it.
any hoo, just wondering.
as for mine, it shows that i am a good for nothing smurf who loves boobies i guess...
It's shows what I'm not.
Pole
