in about 1881 a group of russell's followers stood one night on a bridge in pennsylvania dressed in white robes waiting to be taken to heaven.
it was reported in a newspaper.
apparently russell later said he was not one of the people on the bridge.. does any one have any of the details, and links to where it may be reported?.
jwfacts, the story goes that good Friday 1878, Charles Taze Russell and a handful of followers, all clad in white robes, gathered at the Sixth Street Bridge in Pittsburgh to await the Millennial Dawn, their translation into heaven. Russell later denied the incident, Pittsburgh newspapers insisted otherwise.
I have seen this story talked about, but never seen a reference to it in watchtower lit. or could I find the newspaper in question.
steve
i've seen a lot of fierce belief and science bantered around on the evolution thread this week.
as i was slicing up my final ripened tomato from my garden, i got to thinking.
i learned from mom's example to put the green tomatoes on the window ledge to ripen.
Auldsoul, that's news to me. I'm looking forward to your discussion.
steve
i've seen a lot of fierce belief and science bantered around on the evolution thread this week.
as i was slicing up my final ripened tomato from my garden, i got to thinking.
i learned from mom's example to put the green tomatoes on the window ledge to ripen.
auldsoul: Intelligence can provably be used to artifically introduce constraints conducive to certain evolutionary results.
All true, but so can bad luck.
Are you suggesting that there are testable traits in the evolutionary process that identify a helping hand?
steve
old dawkins is on the rampage again.
.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/5372458.stm.
ascot, you bring up an important point. Sites like the one mentioned tackle these arguments in complete reverse to science.
Science always tries to prove itself wrong. Science will observe and test to find an answer. Then, will try to break that answer.
Fundies will have an answer and THEN try to squeeze reality to fit that answer.
steve
<!-- .style3 {font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; } .style5 {font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14; } .style6 {font-family: arial, sans-serif; color: #0033cc; } .style7 {color: #000000} --> the procedure of disfellowshiping done by the watchtoweryour views the inspiration of this post comes from two .
individuals who have recently gone thorough .
some challenges with the watchtower society.. one was questioning the elders about the un.
The procedure flys in the face of 1 John ch 1
steve
ok, lets have a discussion about where we all came from, evolution or creation?
(or whatever you beleive in of course) every one put down there main reasons, along with reasonable facts and backup as to why.. .
hopefully this doesnt start to many arguments, lol.. .
AlanF, have you read any papers presented by Michael Oard and his description of ice age formation, and the lack of water? I've just started reading some of his papers.
steve
hurray for me !!.
steve (of the shameful request of acknolegment class).
Thaks everyone, I can see why people make self-congratulatory posts.
audasapere : I'm honored to have been in your presence...!
That mutual my friend.
steve
ok, lets have a discussion about where we all came from, evolution or creation?
(or whatever you beleive in of course) every one put down there main reasons, along with reasonable facts and backup as to why.. .
hopefully this doesnt start to many arguments, lol.. .
D Dog: Well my bloodhound and a wolf can procreate yet they are classed a separate species, same thing with polar bears and brown bears. Now there's the two plant species you mentioned they procreate together, were they a separate species?
Okay, you misinterpreted what I said, or I didn't explain it correctly, so I'll try again. These two new species of plant (T. mirus and T. miscellus) only pollinate with the same type. That is T. mirus with T. mirus and T. miscallus with T. miscellus. You can read more about it at the journal Nature: http://www.nature.com/hdy/journal/v84/n4/full/6886540a.html
Also, that different species can procreate demonstrates the evolutionary process. If these species had absolutely no family history whatsoever, then procreation would be impossible. That most separate species can't procreate demonstrates that, as with these plants, when a species can only interbreed, its definition as a separate species is unarguable.
steve
ok, lets have a discussion about where we all came from, evolution or creation?
(or whatever you beleive in of course) every one put down there main reasons, along with reasonable facts and backup as to why.. .
hopefully this doesnt start to many arguments, lol.. .
D Dog,
using your example of your Bloodhound and my Field Spaniel, these would not be classed a separate species in the evolutionary scope, as these breeds of dog can procreate together. Producing another dog. (of coarse the copulation process would be quite amusing to watch).
With the plants I mentioned, it was observed that naturally occurring hybridization created a plant that WILL ONLY pollinate with the same new type of plant. That new plant, is a new species.
The definition of species used is the broad definition used by most.
In the reviewed link you posted you will see that the definition of 'new species' given to these plants holds.
In the classical creationist definition, a species is known as 'type' or 'kind'. That being that each animal and plant alive now and through-out history, have always been the same, unchanged, plant or animal, as created by God (and Jesus). What these new plants observably demonstrate is that they were not created by God, but naturally evolved.
I hope my definition and explaination helps.
steve
steve
ok, lets have a discussion about where we all came from, evolution or creation?
(or whatever you beleive in of course) every one put down there main reasons, along with reasonable facts and backup as to why.. .
hopefully this doesnt start to many arguments, lol.. .
dido - Posterior too much
steve
