the other day my work partner and i were driving back to the shop after finishing working and it was hotter than hell.
we see these two mormon boys doing their thing on their 10 speeds with their typical white shirts on.
they had helmets on too.. my friend says..."why in the hell don't they use cars?
hmm, never saw them on a bike.
In my experience they tipical have white vans, and driving with the lights on in daytime. To show that they are the light of the world.
Well not here in my country, I saw them only walking, but this is in anotehr country thas has a significant mormon polulation. Very easy to spot them in there cars.
Danny
i am seriously considering taking on a jw with the issue of misquotations especially the creation book.
my question is does anyone know what his reaction is going to be?
its a strange situation because theres really no question.
I have had the following responces:
1) I do not believe you. But I do not want to look it up also, because it is not true.
2) Yes it is true, but the argument is still valid so....
3) Huhh
4) There must be some mistake, it is not important. Just trust on Jehovah and his organisation and bla bla bla....
but halton arp's continuing research will forever change the direction of astronomy.
or do our observations of nature show things that a theory says are impossible?
gamow had argued that the stars' temperatures are too low to create elements heavier than helium.
I'll tell you what. You are obviously convinced by some crappy pseudo science that you have read and there is no changing your mind. You can believe quasars are in front of nearby galaxies if you want. I'm not going to try to stop you. However, please take a picture of the faces of any physics professors you tell this too. I would LOVE to see the expression on their faces.
Zagor, No this is not the case IMO. I agree that the article is really a bad one. Trying to prove a point that is not at stake there.
There are however a lot of question regarding quasars. This is not the only one. There is now lot of evidence that galaxies and quasars seem to be related. THis does not say much about the big bang.
I suggest the following articles to compare. They are more scientific then the one mentioned above:
http://physique.ref.ac/holophysique/images/arp.pdf
and http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0409/0409215.pdf
Hope this helps.
Danny
climbing mount improbable .
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v12/i1/improbable.asp .
unweaving the rainbow
Some of the subjects are dealt with already, but I want to address the Weasel program. The article proves that the program is deterministic.
What I think is that Dawkins just gave a example of how randomness can lead to something. Deing deterministic or not.It is a very simple program however, just to illustrate the tings.
Actually the aproch of random mutations to solve some problems are well known. It is used in some programs, as a way to find solutions to some problems. Some also where there solution found is not to be calculated, not deterministic.
This does of course not prove evolution. What it proves is that the process of random mutations can results in certain solutions and that random mutations can lead to some form of a more ordened, better state.
But I thing even creationist agree that random mutations in nature can improve the species. Only they say within the 'kind' only.
So the conclusion can only be that this is a none issue. Then why is it so misleadingly used by creationists?
They just try to attack everthing, even the person in many times, to avoid talking about the ral facts.
Danny
don't get me wrong here.
nor will i deny that there are men and women of science who do not work for money or fame or glory, but rather for "truth", and even for the good of the human race and this planet.. scientists are supposed to be unbiased in their research using the universally accepted "scientific method", being completely objective, and working in the sterile environment of the laboratory, removed from outside contamination and social influence.
they themselves are supposed to approach a subject or investigation with patience and open-mindedness, without prejudice or pre-conceived notions.
In science as anywhere else there's competition. Competition to come to new discoveries before everyone else. But that does that mean science is corrupted. Well, ask yourself how much are scientists really paid. Not helluva lot. If most scientists were corrupted they would be some of the richest people in the world given the amount of knowledge they have.
Instead it is highschool dropouts that make most of money. So bringing science and scientists at the same level as that is really insulting.
Well, I think the one started the thread does not think corruption because of money.
IMO there are some scientists who are maybe corrupted, but corrupted to get there name published. As making a name means more funding, and has a lot of personal advantages.
However I beleive that this is just a few scientist who do this. Just a very few. The far majority are honest working peolpe who are motivated by the fascination to unraffle the truth of nature.
Danny
but halton arp's continuing research will forever change the direction of astronomy.
or do our observations of nature show things that a theory says are impossible?
gamow had argued that the stars' temperatures are too low to create elements heavier than helium.
Hi Rod P,
Ok, thank you for posting this interesting articles. It is quite extensive, so I want to give my comments piece by piece.
First of all I want to say, that I do not want to prove or diprove the Big Bang theory. I do not think it is of that importance to the God question, yet.
Anyway first the article about the Quasar in front of the galaxy, the first link. Here is a beginning part and most important part of the article:
October 3, 2003: the big bang was proved wrong. Again. And here is the proof (image above). The galaxy, NGC 7319, is a Seyfert 2, which means it is a galaxy shrouded with such heavy dust clouds that they obscure most of the bright, active nucleus that defines a normal Seyfert galaxy. This galaxy has a redshift of 0.0225. The tiny white spot is a quasar either silhouetted in front of the opaque gas clouds or embedded in the topmost layers of the dust. The redshift of the quasar is 2.114.
Why does this prove the big bang wrong? One of the two major foundations of the big bang is that redshift is proportional to distance. That means the larger the redshift of an object, the farther away it must be. The other major foundation of the big bang is that all redshift is a measure of velocity. Again, the larger the redshift of an object, the faster it is moving away from us. Combined, these two foundations become the expanding universe, which can be traced backwards to the big bang.
First of all there is no effidence that it is in front of the galaxy. Most probable it is inside it, interacting. Just a detail, but it shows a big how this article is trying to make things more sexy as they are.
Second and this is most important in this article, that "this proves the big bang theory" to be wrong. It does not. This kind of logic does not give a lot credit to the authors. The second paragraph here (quoted above) do oversimplify the things so much, that it is not very scientific.
Quasars or (QSO's) are not needed for the big bang theory. It could be very well possible that for some other reason this quasar has a huge redshift, and yet the big bang theory is still true. There quick conclusion is so invalid.
Anyway let us concentrate on the red shift of this quasar and the galaxy. It seems indeed that there is an interaction between the galaxy and the quasar. This is also not the only time that a quasar is found close to a normal galaxy. There are a lot of instances where this is already found, and the calculated change is very low that this is all a coincidence. That they just happen to be on the same line of sight.
Then the question is what is causing this redshift (of the quasars). I can think of velocity relative to the other galaxy. But it seems unlikely, we should find large blue shifts also.
Gravity is the other. That could be a possiblility. Another thing suggested is maybe some process on atomic level.
It is not really clear what is causing the high redshift in quasars. But does this prove anything?
Normal galaxies have also a redshift. There are other ways of calculating the distances of these galaxies. That these galaxies would have the same anomalities as why the redshift in the quasar is so high, is not very likely. There other methods of calculating distances are a proof that there is a expected relation between redshift and distance, at least for normal galaxies.
In my opinion, this has little or nothing to do with the big bang. It shows that quasars (who always were poorly understood) are maybe smaller, closer and different then astronomers have thought.
Danny
can any one please give me examples, if such exist, of substantial changes in the cd rom vs the hard copies of mags.
this would prove to be invaluable to me in helping my wife see the deception involved with the wts.
i say substantial because something that was obviously a mistake of minor importance could happen in any electronic transfer of data.. thanks so much,.
My pants were falling on my knees when I read this.
This is so bad. A very good find. How does anyone ever find something like this?
This is usefull, this is wicked.
this is a question i've been puzzled by ever since my days in the borg.
everywhere i looked i saw tradesmen, cleaner, auto-mechanics here and there some computer technician.
and i do know there are two doctors, one gp and one specialist in the field of drug rehabilitation.. i've heard stories of some being true scholars though.
I know two. Someone almost a professor, in information technologie. Does some reseach now at a university.
Another is science teacher. (we do not have Phd or master, different titles here. different school systems) The last helped with the creation book. Is teacher and also replacement CO.
Danny
is it possible that just about everything we say about the jw's on this forum is true, but on the other hand they would be the only true religion that god approves, even though they are imperfect and make errors?
Interesting question.
I never found a better religion. So maybe...
jws claim to be led by god.
he is directing their organisation by his spirit.. they believe that smoking is wrong, in fact a disfellowshipping offense.
so why did god not tell them that smoking was wrong?.
Eddie the Eagle Edwards
ha ha ha, did he still not break his neck?
