SimonSays

Joined

• started 1 topics
• posted 252 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by SimonSays

• 
  76

  By “evolution,” we mean “macroevolution”—apes turning into humans, for example.

  by FadingTruth in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  august 2015 awake .

  quote in title taken from article footnote.. anyone have information on who gene hwang and yan-der hsuuw in the article are?.

  why do they repeatedly state that apes turned to humans when that's not what evolutionists teach at all?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  SimonSays

  
  

  
  
• 
  76

  By “evolution,” we mean “macroevolution”—apes turning into humans, for example.

  by FadingTruth in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  august 2015 awake .

  quote in title taken from article footnote.. anyone have information on who gene hwang and yan-der hsuuw in the article are?.

  why do they repeatedly state that apes turned to humans when that's not what evolutionists teach at all?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  SimonSays

  DD Regardless of the origin of life, let me repeat, regardless of the ORIGIN OF LIFE, animals evolve. To say anything less is dishonest and ignorant. For "Christ's brothers" to deliberately misquote authors or take quotes out of context in order to make "evolution" a dirty word is the height of dishonesty.

  marmot: SimonSays, your skin is thinner than a salamander's, DataDog never called you ignorant.

  ...although if the shoe fits.

  Yes I’m aware of DD metaphor. Perhaps you will need a shoe horn and a mirror to give you the ability to see the reflection correctly while sizing up that shoe. Whereas the assertion of Christian brothers only applies to people that have not become complacent in their beliefs which reflects worlds apart from true understanding by which I associate with.
• 
  76

  By “evolution,” we mean “macroevolution”—apes turning into humans, for example.

  by FadingTruth in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  august 2015 awake .

  quote in title taken from article footnote.. anyone have information on who gene hwang and yan-der hsuuw in the article are?.

  why do they repeatedly state that apes turned to humans when that's not what evolutionists teach at all?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  SimonSays

  DD> No, it's not hypothetical. I suggest you do some research on the Coywolf, an animal that you can observe right now.

  I would suggest before you open you big mouth and call people ignorant you read the threads correctly as no one is suggesting that premise.
  
• 
  76

  By “evolution,” we mean “macroevolution”—apes turning into humans, for example.

  by FadingTruth in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  august 2015 awake .

  quote in title taken from article footnote.. anyone have information on who gene hwang and yan-der hsuuw in the article are?.

  why do they repeatedly state that apes turned to humans when that's not what evolutionists teach at all?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  SimonSays

  While your definition of evolution has many variables, the distinctions therefore continue as hypothetical, even if certain aspects have proven theories.
• 
  76

  By “evolution,” we mean “macroevolution”—apes turning into humans, for example.

  by FadingTruth in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  august 2015 awake .

  quote in title taken from article footnote.. anyone have information on who gene hwang and yan-der hsuuw in the article are?.

  why do they repeatedly state that apes turned to humans when that's not what evolutionists teach at all?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  SimonSays

  Evolution also has absolutely NOTHING to do with explaining the "origin of life." It explains speciation. And it has the evidence and data to back it up. Which is why it is a THEORY and not a hypothesis.

  The concept of a creator has absolutely no basis in fact or evidence whatsoever.

  That would be the point from an evolution stand point of view, EVOLUTION HAS NOTHING TO DO with CREATION.
  
• 
  76

  By “evolution,” we mean “macroevolution”—apes turning into humans, for example.

  by FadingTruth in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  august 2015 awake .

  quote in title taken from article footnote.. anyone have information on who gene hwang and yan-der hsuuw in the article are?.

  why do they repeatedly state that apes turned to humans when that's not what evolutionists teach at all?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  SimonSays

  It is only mainstream writers to argue how evolution should be perceived by creationist. Theology in itself aligns to the core value of what a Heavenly God is and attributes there in.

  Evolutionist such a Darwin made this compelling argument to satisfy the science community how such differences would apply to the onset forecast within the logic of creationism.

  Microevolution happens on a small scale (within a single population), while macroevolution happens on a scale that transcends the boundaries of a single species. Despite their differences, evolution at both of these levels relies on the same, established mechanisms of evolutionary change: mutation.

  There are two possible sources of the genetic variability that must be introduced into a population for change to take place: mutation and genetic recombination. Mutations are random nucleotide alterations such as copying errors or changes induced by external mutagens. In contrast, genetic recombination is performed by the cell during the preparation of gametes (sperm, egg, pollen) which are used for sexual reproduction.

  The genomic differences between any two siblings are tremendous, and with rare exception all of those genetic distinctions were specifically created recombination. Both recombination and mutations can contribute to the evolution of an organism, but genetic recombination is the primary source of the genetic distinctions between individuals in a population, and must therefore be the principal driving force behind evolution

  While one holds upon expansion, Creation descends from inception, i.e. point of origin. (LIFE) however complex these theories are, both cannot find an actual point of origin of life.

  For this purpose they both inherit the same standards by canceling each other theories as speculation. While one can be answered physically under man made proven hypothesizes the other can be proven by simple physical archeology.

  The inference that evolutionist writers conspire to suggest that a millennial amount of generational people somehow conspired to develop or orchestrated the ultimate lie of transition, would be in itself ludicrous.
• 
  6

  "Macroevolution" - where did the term come from? (Calling Coftey, et. al.)

  by cappytan in

  1. jw
  2. experiences

  is macroevolution a word made up by evolutionary scientists and darwinists, or did creationists come up with that word?.

  because, from my understanding, there is no such thing as macroevolution.

  an ape didn't give birth to a human, for instance.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  SimonSays

  When Leavitt suggested microevolution in 1909 it was to address the mystery of formlessness while describing development biology. However in 1927 the theory reshaped itself to widen the hypothetical with variations under the heading of macroevolution by a Russian entomologist. and then brought into mainstream in English in 1937.

  It is only mainstream writers to argue how evolution should be perceived by creationist. Theology in itself aligns to the core value of what a Heavenly God is and attributes there in.

  Evolutionist such a Darwin made this compelling argument to satisfy the science community how such differences would apply to the onset forecast within the logic of creationism.

  Microevolution happens on a small scale (within a single population), while macroevolution happens on a scale that transcends the boundaries of a single species. Despite their differences, evolution at both of these levels relies on the same, established mechanisms of evolutionary change: mutation.

  There are two possible sources of the genetic variability that must be introduced into a population for change to take place: mutation and genetic recombination. Mutations are random nucleotide alterations such as copying errors or changes induced by external mutagens. In contrast, genetic recombination is performed by the cell during the preparation of gametes (sperm, egg, pollen) which are used for sexual reproduction.

  The genomic differences between any two siblings are tremendous, and with rare exception all of those genetic distinctions were specifically created recombination. Both recombination and mutations can contribute to the evolution of an organism, but genetic recombination is the primary source of the genetic distinctions between individuals in a population, and must therefore be the principal driving force behind evolution

  While one holds upon expansion, Creation descends from inception, i.e. point of origin. (LIFE) however complex these theories are, both cannot find an actual point of origin of life.

  For this purpose they both inherit the same standards by canceling each other theories as speculation. While one can be answered physically under man made proven hypothesizes the other can be proven by simple physical archeology.

  The inference that evolutionist writers conspire to suggest that a millennial amount of generational people somehow conspired to develop or orchestrated the ultimate lie of transition, would be in itself ludicrous.
• 
  40

  What is Your Brainwashing IQ ? Take the Quiz

  by Finkelstein in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  so how much do you understand about brainwashing, its application and effects ?

  essentially lures people into its grasps and then brainwashes them for exploitation and manipulative purposes by using mental indoctrination techniques.. here's a quick quiz to take to answer some of these questions.

  http://voicesfordignity.com/brainwashing-iq/.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  SimonSays

  I believe the thought process speaks for itself. Simple philosophy you might find otherwise in high school. A true analyses would then suggest that a higher score would infer easy manipulation.

  Inductive reasoning is a logical process in which multiple premises, all believed true or found true most of the time, are combined to obtain a specific conclusion. Inductive reasoning is often used in applications that involve prediction, forecasting, or behavior. Here is an example:

  During the scientific process, deductive reasoning is used to reach a logical true conclusion. Another type of reasoning, inductive, is also used. Often, deductive reasoning and inductive reasoning are confused. It is important to learn the meaning of each type of reasoning so that proper logic can be identified.
• 
  41

  If you found out TTATT at 80 and spent your entire life at Bethel, what would you do?

  by John Aquila in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  would you do a ray franz deal and write a book or keep quiet and live out the rest of your life in bethel?.

  would you keep reading the watchtower magazine?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  SimonSays

  
  
• 
  16

  Rutherford, Knorr or Franz - Who has the most influence on doctrine & process now?

  by konceptual99 in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  so, i was thinking - who of the above still has the most influence on current wts doctrine and dogma?.

  rutherford obviously created the smokescreen around 1914/607 but overall his work has been superseded i would suggest.. knorr created the various schools and they or their offspring still live on.

  wasn't it during his tenure that all the blood doctrine, types/anti types (now chucked away of course), transplants etc came along?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  SimonSays

  From the above list, I would say The God of Abraham, Jacob, and Isaac along with Jesus.