dark angle

Joined

• started 15 topics
• posted 182 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by dark angle

• 
  4

  James A. Shapiro, Professor of Microbiology qouted to support Creationism.

  by dark angle in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  my brother, clinging to creationism quoted prof. james a. shapiro to support his idea.

  this our facebook dialoge:.

  him:innovation, not selection, is the critical issue in evolutionary change.. thirty years ago, i was at a conference in cambridge, england, to celebrate the centennial of darwin's death.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  dark angle

  Thank you guys. your inputs are well appreciated.
• 
  4

  James A. Shapiro, Professor of Microbiology qouted to support Creationism.

  by dark angle in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  my brother, clinging to creationism quoted prof. james a. shapiro to support his idea.

  this our facebook dialoge:.

  him:innovation, not selection, is the critical issue in evolutionary change.. thirty years ago, i was at a conference in cambridge, england, to celebrate the centennial of darwin's death.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  dark angle

  My brother, clinging to creationism quoted Prof. James A. Shapiro to support his idea. this our Facebook dialoge:
  
  Him: Innovation, not selection, is the critical issue in evolutionary change.

  Thirty years ago, I was at a conference in Cambridge, England, to celebrate the centennial of Darwin's death. There, Richard Dawkins began his lecture by saying, "I will not only explain that Darwin had the right answer, but I will show that he had the only possible right answer."

  Hearing this (and knowing that alternative explanations inevitably arise in science), I said to myself that the Creationists have a point. They are dealing with a form of religious belief on the "evolution" side. Dawkins' transformation into an aggressive proselytizer for his undoubting and absolutist version of atheism confirms this conclusion.

  - James A. Shapiro, Professor of Microbiology, University of Chicago

  Me: Don't rejoice yet! Prof Shapiro is not a proponent of Creationism. Far from it, he is one of the leading researcher and advocator of Modern Evolutionary Theory as opposed to Neo Darwinism. His postulates are fine and intriguing.
  
  In his boo k: Evolution: A View from the 21st Century, Shapiro integrates advances in symbiogenesis, epigenetics, and saltationism into a unified approach that views evolutionary change as an active cell process, regulated epigenetically and capable of making rapid large changes by horizontal DNA transfer, inter-specific hybridization, whole genome doubling, symbiogenesis, or massive genome restructuring.
  
  His book, marshals extensive evidence in support of a fundamental reinterpretation of evolutionary processes, including more than 1,100 references to the scientific literature. Shapiro's work will generate extensive discussion throughout the biological community, and may significantly change your own thinking about how life has evolved. It also has major implications for evolutionary computation, information science, and the growing synthesis of the physical and biological sciences.
  
  http://www.amazon.com/ Evolution-View-Century-Pres s-Science/dp/0132780933

  Him: Yep, he is an honest evolutionist.
  
  "In order to be truthful, we must acknowledge that certain questions, like the origins of the first living cells, currently have no credible scientific answer." - James A. Shapiro
  
  Meanwhile..
  
  "I will not only explain that Darwin had the right answer, but I will show that he had the only possible right answer." - Richard Dawkins

  One can immediately distinguish between the two which one is a true biologist(scientist) from an evangelist. hehe

  Me: First of, your right, Prof Shapiro is not opposing the general theory of Evolution. Rather, he is refining the details of the mechanisms, arguing that the classical definition of Darwinism is lacking, and that through the advancement of modern technology and recent biological data, offers alternative details on evolutionary processes. He is not arguing about whether Evolution did occur or not, but rather the on the details. For him the classical definitions are either lacking or incorrect.
  
  Second, the cherry pick quoted: "In order to be truthful, we must acknowledge that certain questions, like the origins of the first living cells, currently have no credible scientific answer." was lifted out from the rest of his comments, & used by some creationist fans to suit their needs. Here is the entire context:
  
  "We need to demonstrate that evolution science is alive and well, as well as show how it is making remarkable progress through the application of molecular technologies -- even though it does not have all the answers.
  
  To the thoughtful scientist whose job is to uncover natural processes, this is surely a better way of advocating the scientific method than dogmatically asserting that we found all the scientific principles we need in centuries past.
  
  In order to be truthful, we must acknowledge that certain questions, like the origins of the first living cells, currently have no credible scientific answer. However, given the historical record of science and technology in achieving the "impossible" (e.g., space flight, telecommunications, electronic computation and robotics), there is no reason to believe that unsolved problems will remain without naturalistic explanations indefinitely." - James A. Shapiro.
  
  Now, who's the evangelist?
  
  C'mon lets get over that stone age superstition!
  
  http:// www.evolutionnews.org/2012/ 05/ more_reasons_to059221.html

  Did i answer him correctly? please give me your inputs. thanks
• 
  464

  Applying Math, Physics, Archeology to THE STORY OF NOAH

  by Terry in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs
  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  dark angle

  Excellent points Terry! Can i copy your arguments here? i'm planning to use this in debunking some stone aged belief of JW elders here.

  Here's another interesting video:

  The Great Flood
• 
  20

  What does "everlasting life" mean?

  by N.drew in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  john 3:16. i'll just say that the way i understand it is i am existing in it, it is not existing in me.. 166 (ai?nios) does not focus on the future per se, but rather on the quality of the age (165 /ai?n) it relates to.

  thus believers live in "eternal (166 /ai?nios) life" right now, experiencing this quality of god's life now as a present possession.

  (note the gk present tense of having eternal life in jn 3:36, 5:24, 6:47; cf.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  dark angle

  Or check this out

  Immortalility
• 
  20

  What does "everlasting life" mean?

  by N.drew in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  john 3:16. i'll just say that the way i understand it is i am existing in it, it is not existing in me.. 166 (ai?nios) does not focus on the future per se, but rather on the quality of the age (165 /ai?n) it relates to.

  thus believers live in "eternal (166 /ai?nios) life" right now, experiencing this quality of god's life now as a present possession.

  (note the gk present tense of having eternal life in jn 3:36, 5:24, 6:47; cf.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  dark angle

  What does "everlasting life" mean?

  Just watch Twilight!
• 
  45

  Where are Gods people

  by frigginconfused in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  im having difficulty with this.

  no where else can you find a chrstian org with people like the ones ive seen in the halls.

  im not talking the good ol' boy club.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  dark angle

  I also know many "Clean living, God disbelieving people" as well.
• 
  20

  Newton, Einstein, Naturalism, and Walking Fish- Naturalism vs Supernaturalism. Put up or Shut up!!!

  by whereami in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  .

  .

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbswkmobrl8&feature=digest_sun.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  dark angle

  Thanks for pointing the irony out.

  The first qoute, the one that you underline was my opinion, my own idea if there should be design to be found.

  the 2nd quote you pointed out was the quoted statement from Wiki about ID. Its the reason why it looks incongruent.

  Interesting irony nevertheless. :)
• 
  19

  WT Letter To Ray Franz

  by Bangalore in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  .

  .

  bangalore.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  dark angle

  Any links to those tapes?
• 
  86

  QFR WT MARCH 15TH - PORN - D/F

  by stillajwexelder in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i assume you are all aware of this by now.

  qfr could a christians practice of viewing pornography.

  become so bad that it results in his being expelled.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  dark angle

  Sanctioning porn on matured individuals is hypocrisy. We are sexual creatures, beings that enjoyed exploring the gratifying exercise of sex. It’s the very reason why we survive as a species. Porn viewing is useful to excite sexual desires more intensely thus providing more pleasure on couples and for those who are not. Porn and sexuality is part of being human (or being animals) and should not be sanctioned against. It would be more profitable for the society to have guidelines in using porn more appropriately than sanctioning it as a sin and could be grounds for disfellowshipping.
• 
  44

  SPECIAL INTERVIEW with Jehovah!

  by Terry in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  you live; you die.

  r: but, why give us a bible.

  why send jesus to die for us if everything is "meaningless" for us?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  dark angle

  Vey good Terry!

  should we canonize this account?