it`s been interesting watching the org.
trying different ways to make money while at the same time keeping up a front of not being interested in money.
especially since they were forced to drop the.
Preston said:
...for $60,000 to $80,000 they could probably get a new kingdom hall.
Perhaps this is true in Arizona, but here is NYC it's alot higher. The congregation I go to (seldomly ) along with like 4 or 5 others are combining funds to build one of those "cookie cutter" multiplex halls. The cost? $750,000! Almost a million dollars on a damn hall, but not a cent from me.
a friend at the march, just called me to tell me how the march is going.
it's not raining and hasn't rained!!
nearly 3 hours into it, and it is still going.
anyavnclv, Theodore Jaracz is a member of the governing body. As the head of the Service Department, he weilds a lot of power not only in the JW org., but on the governing body itself.
Jaracz is a molestor? I'd like to get solid conformation of this, but absolutely nothing about the JW's surprises me anymore, so it very well may be true.
Edited by - crownboy on 27 September 2002 19:41:13
another poster and i are worried sick about esmerelda.
neither of us have heard from her for months.
she has ms, and had been doing well, but that can change quickly.
I second your request, Mulan.
I've sent her email myself, and have not gotten a reply. It's kind of worrying because of the MS thing, as you mentioned. When she did post here, she was hands down one of my top 5 posters, and I really hope she is doing OK.
It was partly through encouragement from her that I got out of "lurk mode" exactly one year ago and started posting here, and I certainly miss her posts.
i've been lurking for several months, its my first post here.
i am currently an active jw.
i have a very jw family so i have to be careful.
Do You Believe Any of "The Truth"?
Though we'll never agree on political issues, I'm with Francois on this one.
I don't believe in a hell fire after death. I also don't believe the god of the bible is real; he's just too vengeful to be loving IMO.
in the midst of the debates -- or wars -- concerning the issues of creation and evolution, there is a tendency to over-generalize.
both sides often refer to the opposing side with the broad term of either "evolutionist" or "creationist.
" and yet there exists within both sides a great deal of variety and even controversy.
tkmmorgan, please correct me if I'm wrong, but I do believe there isn't even a 4 year college in Poplar Bluff, Missouri. The best I could come up with was a 2 year school called Three Rivers Community College (see : http://www.trcc.edu/ ), and that certainly does not qualify as "graduate level". Again, if I'm wrong, please point me out to the correct college.
As for that university in Australia, perhaps you should read xander's link, or the link to the page about the credentials about "Dr. Dino's" creditionals in my last post, or maybe this one : http://members.aol.com/Paluxy2/degrees.htm .
Basically, the Australian university is an unaccredited school run by a YEC friend of Baugh, hence his dissertation was not "peer reviewed", and like "Dr. Dino", Baugh has no scientific credentals.
As for the last quote by Gould, it specifically reinforces what rem told you. the (...) part of the quote no doubt leaves out some vital information, as Gould has said, in context:
Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists--whether through design or stupidity, I do not know--as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups. Yet a pamphlet entitled 'Harvard Scientists Agree Evolution Is a Hoax' states: 'The facts of punctuated equilibrium which Gould and Eldredge...are forcing Darwinists to swallow fit the picture that Bryan insisted on, and which God has revealed to us in the Bible.'"
For some examples of speciation in recent times see: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
So not only have you not presented articles that have actually been peer reviewed, you refer to talkorigins as mearly a newsgroup. Well, in case you haven't noticed, all references from the talkorigins site comes from peer reviewed work, which is accesible to anyone. The purpose of talkorigins is to make the scientific information easy to read for people who are not particularly learned in the field, but you may look up their peer reviewed references if you care to. We point you to talkorigins, not only because of the wealth of information presented there, but also because it is fairly popular and reputable.
Also we are not simply "quoting to support our belief". To point a flat earther to literature supporting and oblique-spherical earth is not simply "quoting to support our belief". To point a Muslim to information showing that many aspects of their religious hajj mirrors practices of their pagan predecessors and was most probably taken from them is not "quoting to support a belief". It is simply stating fact. Pointing out that Carl Baugh and Kent Hovind have no scientific credentials, whether done by friend or foe, makes no difference, the truthfulness is what counts. All you have to do is provide evidence that your guys have real science credentials, and nothing we can say can change it. The fact that you cannot do so speaks volumes.
(Edited to add: the "evidence" provided on the website you gave me has already been addressed in the links I provided to you in the last post. I guess you didn't read most of it, or skipped over large parts. Ditto on what rem said about the rigours of peer review.)
Edited by - crownboy on 26 September 2002 19:50:54
in the midst of the debates -- or wars -- concerning the issues of creation and evolution, there is a tendency to over-generalize.
both sides often refer to the opposing side with the broad term of either "evolutionist" or "creationist.
" and yet there exists within both sides a great deal of variety and even controversy.
tkmmorgan, I see you're a big fan of Kent Hovind, a.k.a. "Dr. Dino", even going as far as to adopt is erroneus definition of evolution (those 5 points). For a look at some of the problems with his $250,000 "bet"see http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind.html
For a nice refutation for a lot of Hovind's nonsense see: http://www.geocities.com/kenthovind/
Another pretty good and thorough refutation can be found at : http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/dave_matson/young-earth/index.shtml
And for yet more refutations of Hovind see: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood.html
I happen to be fairly familiar with him, and I've seen his "Dr. Dino" site. As can be seen by the links provided above, "Dr. Dino" (not even a man with any science credentials. See: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/credentials.html ) doesn't know what he's talking about.
I (and others) are not giving you all this information to read to obstruficate the arguments, but because we seek to educate you. All the cries of "you don't understand evolution" are quite genuine and obvious as your post are read (I was somewhat cringing through most of it, but just had to post once you put "Dr. Dino" as a science reference). Now I don't expect everyone to accept evolution (hell, I don't expect you to really read my info, I did it mainly for lurkers, but I'd be happy if you did read it), because it would entail admitting some deeply held beliefs are wrong, and some people just can't be honest with themselves. But at the very least I expect creationist to simply say that their belief in built on faith alone, and stop butchering theories they don't care to educate themselves about.
In your last post you talk about having a "transistional species between ape and man". THERE IS NO SUCH SPECIES, SINCE MAN DID NOT EVOLVE FROM MORDERN APES. Apes and humans share a common ancestor some 6 million years ago, and they're both as evolved as the other, humans simply have superior cognitive ability. (for some examples of transisitional evolutionary fossils for humans see: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/ ) And lastly, for some evidences of "macro-evolution" see: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ .
Yes, it's a lot of reading, but you have to do that much reading and more to fully grasp evolutionary theory (I use talkorigins alot because they present it very nicely for beginners, but feel free to reference other reputable sources). Most of us (former JW's like me), believed what you did at one time and we know the arguments. I personally have read creationist websites. For your own self education, surprise me and read the evolutionst side. Get rid of your silly notion that evolution is here to promote atheism and godlessness, and recognize that 99% of scientists accept it because it's fact.
Edited by - crownboy on 25 September 2002 21:55:54
ok, here's my question.
how do you go from being a jw to being a whatever (methodist, lutheran, etc.
) i've been invited to go to many churches with friends, but, i have no desire to ever set foot in any church.
Well, I'm as non-religious as they get, and I have no desire to join another church, persue religion, or anything of that nature. Not necessarily because the JW's "spoiled it for me", but I just don't believe this stuff.
You have every right to be non religious, Buffy, as Utopian Reformist pointed out, you can also simply be religious in the privacy of your own home, without organized religion being a middle man (I get the same "brain lock" when I read post of a highly religious nature, too ). You can also discard spirituality all together if you reached such a decision after much research and "soul searching".
The issue you brought up about your child is quite interesting. Don't go around thinking you are damning you and your child, Buffy. As StinkyPantz said, if a (loving) god truly exist, he won't condemn you for being a good person and reaching decisions on sound reason, whether you're "religious" or not. However, if I had a child, I would at least want them to have a basic knowledge of religions, though not an indoctrination. I would probably go to a Unitarian Universalist congregation if anything, as these guys are as non-sectarian as they get. The children's Sunday school usually entails teaching them about various religious traditions, without endorsing anything. I went there once, it was actually pretty nice, but I'm more religious about N.Y. Jets games than anything else on Sundays .
i found a very interesting / sad thread on a true jw chat site that talked about what to do after armageddon occured.. of the 16 posters only 1 stated concern about the 6 billion people that will die that day.
how sad and selfish is that?
if god exists i would love to know what he thinks about this attidude.. http://groups.msn.com/jehovahswitnessesontheweb/general.msnw?action=get_message&mview=0&id_message=9100&lastmodified=4675382197663880489.
This thread is also very sad. Depression seems to be rampant among JW's:
fatal things to say if your wife is pregnant.... .
"i finished the oreo's.
"not to imply anything, but i don't think the kid weighs 40 pounds.
Funny.
attention!
attention!
i have come into possession of a actual audio recording of a recent gb meeting in which they are discussing the scandals they are having to deal with.... download audio of gb meeting
I'm having a very hard time deciphering the words on that audiofile. What exactly is the boy saying?
