in jw land having such was verboten.
who are some of yours and why?.
1. nikola tesla - greatest inventor ever, and the only one i know of who was a true scientist as well.. 2. elon musk - there is a reason he chose the great inventor's name for his masterpiece work...also has a serious pair.... 3. jim morrison - brilliant and mad poet.. 4. mike krzyzewski - the epitome of success.. 5. maya angelou - brilliant humanistic poet and writer.. 6. albert einstein - do i actually have to qualify this?.
To name a few, (and my favorite work from them)
1) Leohnard Euler - Euler's identity
2) Albert Camus - Exile and the Kingdom
3) Friedrich Nietzsche - The Antichrist
4) John von Neumann - First Draft
5) Paul Dirac - Dirac Equation
6) linus Torvalds - Linux
7) Carl Guass - Modern mathmatics, matrix algebra
8) Linus Pauling - bonding theory
9) Dante Alighieri - The Divine Commedy
10) Lou Reed - The VU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sh4bi60alzu.
first person to say, "this scishow episode is a monsanto conspiracy," is a rotten egg..
"2. GMO plants do not produce seeds, leaving the farmer with no option except to buy new seed every year."
This is simply not true.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sh4bi60alzu.
first person to say, "this scishow episode is a monsanto conspiracy," is a rotten egg..
A good read for anyone interested in the field
Sorry if the link is off, im on my cellular
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sh4bi60alzu.
first person to say, "this scishow episode is a monsanto conspiracy," is a rotten egg..
"If they were, for example, to use peanut genes in corn and a consumer has a major allergy to peanuts then that could be a problem."
This isn't necessarily the case. Peanuts have thousands of genes and only a handful of them code the protein that causes allergic reactions.
Beyond that, I see a common misconception cropping up here (no pun intended). Monsanto and other agrochem companies use genetic modification to boost plants metabolism/resistamce to pesticides (currently glycophosphate aka roundup, next rna interference), whereas other companies and projects (such as golden rice, ebola cure) have engineered plants to produce novel or exogenic proteins. The risk of the first is, "what is the effect of heavy pesticide use, both on the plant and the environment?" The risk of the second is, "what are the effects of the consumption of this protein/metabolite?"
Pro GMO, down with monsanto!
i was just watching a documentary film about the amish.
this one girl who left said she didn't leave until her early twenties because as a teen until then she had her eye on one of the boys in the church.
she had a crush on him and hoped to marry him.
it's been a while since i've posted, but i've been lurking more and more lately (men never made it to the moon :p).
i recently saw a copy of the august awake magazine entitle cells!
living libraries!
It's been a while since I've posted, but I've been lurking more and more lately (men never made it to the moon :P). I recently saw a copy of the August awake magazine entitle Cells! Living Libraries! I was surprised to find this quote in the magazine
“The filament of DNA is information, a message written in a code of chemicals, one chemical for each letter,” wrote evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins. “It is almost too good to be true, but the code turns out to be written in a way that we can understand.”
I find it interesting that the organization is willing to quote such a militant evolutionist. Will any interested ones look into Richard Dawkins? The lack of scientific information is astonishing, and their metaphors are misleading to say the least. It seems to me that they are opening the door for some dangerous questions with articles like this.
For example, consider this-
In 1999, fragments of very ancient pottery with unusual markings, or symbols, were found in Pakistan. The marks still remain undeciphered. Nevertheless, they are considered man-made.
A few years after Watson and Crick discovered the structure of DNA, two physicists proposed searching for coded radio signals from space. Thus began the modern-day search for extraterrestrial intelligence.
You don't need any schooling in logic to see the flaws with that reasoning. They are crumbling...
Ian
there seem to be many prerequisites for life as we know it.. to name a few: order, function, compatibility, availability, sustainability, intelligence, consciousness, intuition and so on.. focusing on only one, namely order.. what are the chances of order arising spontaneously, by chance, with no creator/designer?.
i have often pondered this and recently came across a mathematical summary of the big picture:.
if every particle in the known physical universe (10^80 particles), participated in one trillion interactions (10^12 interactions) per second, for the entire 30 billion years of the universe's existence (10^18 seconds), then we would by now have covered only 10^110 permutations.. if you had only 100 components in a container, what are the chances that a blindfolded person could lay them out in order on a table?.
You state that there are many prerequisites for life. I would disagree with a number of them, namely consciousness, intelligence, and intuition. All of these are components of advanced systems but certainly are not required for life to begin. A number of your other prerequisites can really be boiled down to the idea of self replicating patterns. Their function and sustainability are a product of their order, not independent attributes. This is the selective factor that determines whether or not something would "live", that is, can it function to reproduce itself. Only those random lifeforms whose intrinsic properties allowed for repetition would continue to exist past the brief frame of time when they happened into existence.
While a fully functional human being may be an impossibly complex system to come across randomly, a short RNA sequence with the ability to self replicate (possibly only a few dozen base pair long) is certainly not.
are their any newer people here, who recently found out ttatt, who has been disturbed by all the new changes in the organization?
it is turning into something that feels impersonal.
i know change is good.
i recently shared my views on how to witness to jehovah's witnesses to a local congregation.
the video link is also below:.
maybe this will help some reach out to loved ones that are still members.. .
i am totally new to this.
i was raised as a jehovah's witness.
i made it my own at the age of 5. i was a "true believer ".
Vinman, welcome!
I have found that one of the most exhilarating aspects of being free from the Watchtower has been using my mind to freely observe and think critically- we were always taught that all the answers of life could be found on some page of one book or another! After everything has been read, take your time to observe and to reason on things with your own mind. Best of luck...
iHunt
