Posts by SickofLies

AT the moment, there is no serious scientific rival to Darwinism. Indeed, if the explanation for the origin and complexity of life must be sought in physical mechanisms, then an evolutionary theory of some sort would seem to be inevitable. But why, the neo-creos ask, should other sorts of explanations -- those positing intelligent causes, supernatural interventions -- be ruled out by fiat? To do so betrays a commitment to ''metaphysical naturalism,'' the doctrine that nature is a system of material causes and effects sealed off from outside influences; and that, they say, is a matter of faith, not proof.

HA! Good work VM44, another example of the WTS using 'quote mining' to support their position. Such tactics are inherently dishonest in nature as the article clearly doesn't put out a positive case for creationism.

Narkissos, indeed, the WTS believes that they are somehow authorities when it comes to science. They frequently use scientific 'facts' in there articles that are either out of date, out of context or just plain wrong. I can tell you how many talks I've had to sit though in agony as speakers abuse science to try and promote their own views on the bible. At the same time they are promoting science, they discredit it when it comes to areas they disagree with. They have to contradict themselves if they put down creationism because they themselves are promoters of it.

171

I'm back!!!!

by RichieRich in

jw
friends

hello again from sunny north carolina!!!.

our state lotto started today, and i won 15 dollars, and only bought 1 $1 card.

so whoop whoop for gambling.. i was in miami florida last week for the photoshop world conference, but i also got to tour the everglades, where i took some beautiful pictures.

SickofLies

Execellent! Is it possible to get this into a PDF format anyone?? I would love to print a few of these off and have a few people disfellowshiped!

18

Watchtower Promotes Creationism and Contradicts Itself!!!

by SickofLies in

http://www.watchtower.org/library/g/2004/6/22/article_01.htm

charles darwin's theory of evolution has been prevalent for a century and a half.

some educated people may have expected that by now, belief in god would be banished to the realm of the ignorant, the gullible, and the naive.

SickofLies

http://www.watchtower.org/library/g/2004/6/22/article_01.htm

Charles Darwin's theory of evolution has been prevalent for a century and a half. Some educated people may have expected that by now, belief in God would be banished to the realm of the ignorant, the gullible, and the naive. Nothing of the kind has happened. Many scientists openly profess belief in a Creator. Granted, they may not believe in a personal God or in the Bible. Yet, they are convinced that the design evident in nature requires an intelligent Designer.
Can such scientists be dismissed as naive? Reporting on scientists who believe that intelligent design is responsible for our cosmos and life in it, a book review in The New York Times comments: "They have Ph.D.'s and occupy positions at some of the better universities. The case they make against Darwinism does not rest on the authority of Scripture; rather, it proceeds from premises that are scientific."
The same article also notes that proponents of intelligent design "do not stake any obviously foolish claims. . . . What they deny is that the standard Darwinian theory, or any other 'naturalistic' theory that confines itself to mindless, mechanical causes operating gradually over time, suffices to explain the whole of life. The biological world, they contend, is rife with evidence of intelligent design—evidence that points with near certainty to the intervention of an Intelligent Designer."

Proponents of intelligent design do not stake any obviously foolish claims? HA!!! Perhaps they missed the ball on this one but proponents of ID also believe in a literal 6 days of creation for the earth and the univerise, an idea the WTS rejects!

http://www.watchtower.org/library/g/2002/6/8/article_01.htm

For example, when we understand that the Bible uses the term "day" to represent various periods of time, we see that the account of the six creative days in Genesis need not conflict with the scientific conclusion that the age of the earth is about four and a half billion years. According to the Bible, the earth existed for an unstated period before the creative days began. (See the box "The Creative Days—24 Hours Each?") Even if science corrects itself and suggests a different age for our planet, the statements made in the Bible still hold true. Instead of contradicting the Bible, science in this and many other cases actually provides us with voluminous supplemental information about the physical world, both present and past.

Creationist make the foolish claim that one life form has never been observed to give rise to another is simply untrue. Darwin himself used the analogy of variation under domestication, and we have numerous examples of species and varieties that are in domestication and differ from heir known progenitors.

Creationist claim evolution is a usless theory! http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA215.html Indeed I cannot think of any claim made by a creationist that isn't foolish!

Yet another contradiction brought to light!

36

Wacky WT article to 'scare you'

by Smiles in

its a wt article on their official website called the "the danger zone".

"the danger zone"... isn't that an old kenny loggins song for the top gun movie soundtrack?.

here is the wt "danger zone"... .

SickofLies

171

I'm back!!!!

by RichieRich in

jw
friends

hello again from sunny north carolina!!!.

our state lotto started today, and i won 15 dollars, and only bought 1 $1 card.

so whoop whoop for gambling.. i was in miami florida last week for the photoshop world conference, but i also got to tour the everglades, where i took some beautiful pictures.

SickofLies

Bravo! Theoratic Warfare straegity at its best!

I have also 'borrowed' many items from my hall including 'Golden Age' articles dating back to the 20's!

15

Please explain: Faithful, Discreet & Slave

by Amnesty Vendor in

i am not trying to vent here, however i have somewhat of an internal dilema.

having been a very faithful, committed jw for many years, .

i do not understand how the (current) gb justifies applying the title fds .

SickofLies

The offical answer I believe is that Jesus came down and inspected all religions in 1919 and found them to be the only ones handing out 'spritual food' even though what they taught then is nothing like what they teach today. The idea of 1919 and Jesus inspecting them and declaring them clean is at the same level as the claims made by Scientology.

BTW, Welcome to the board.

48

A fact that debunks the dubs statement of this being ''the last memorial''

by kittyeatzjdubs in

i was reading coc last night and i started pondering over minimus' post of how the dubs are saying this is the last memorial and the end is finally here.

then i remembered the teaching that the first setoff to the big a. any thoughts on this?.

luv, jojo

SickofLies

They would never put it in writing!