Posts by dark angle

6

"THE SHUNNING MOVIE" IS AVAILABLE ON NETFLIX INSTANT QUE!

by Bubblegum Apotheosis in

.

i might watch this movie this weekend, it looks good!.

dark angle

thanks for the headsup.

48

Creation, evolution, the flood and science - Is the Bible without error?

by Andrew Sh in

[if gte mso 9]><xml> <o:officedocumentsettings> <o:allowpng /> </o:officedocumentsettings> </xml><!

[endif][if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:worddocument> <w:view>normal</w:view> <w:zoom>0</w:zoom> <w:trackmoves /> <w:trackformatting /> <w:punctuationkerning /> <w:validateagainstschemas /> <w:saveifxmlinvalid>false</w:saveifxmlinvalid> <w:ignoremixedcontent>false</w:ignoremixedcontent> <w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext>false</w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext> <w:donotpromoteqf /> <w:lidthemeother>en-gb</w:lidthemeother> <w:lidthemeasian>x-none</w:lidthemeasian> <w:lidthemecomplexscript>x-none</w:lidthemecomplexscript> <w:compatibility> <w:breakwrappedtables /> <w:snaptogridincell /> <w:wraptextwithpunct /> <w:useasianbreakrules /> <w:dontgrowautofit /> <w:splitpgbreakandparamark /> <w:enableopentypekerning /> <w:dontflipmirrorindents /> <w:overridetablestylehps /> </w:compatibility> <m:mathpr> <m:mathfont m:val="cambria math" /> <m:brkbin m:val="before" /> <m:brkbinsub m:val="--" /> <m:smallfrac m:val="off" /> <m:dispdef /> <m:lmargin m:val="0" /> <m:rmargin m:val="0" /> <m:defjc m:val="centergroup" /> <m:wrapindent m:val="1440" /> <m:intlim m:val="subsup" /> <m:narylim m:val="undovr" /> </m:mathpr></w:worddocument> </xml><!

[endif][if gte mso 10]> <mce:style><!

dark angle

Dark Angel - Thanks, but you would have saved yourself some trouble writing if you had just said you
1 - don't believe the Bible is inspired by God, and
2 - do believe life could have materialised from non-life by itself.

Andrew,

You seem to be so centered in the word "beleive/belief". It looks like your so inclined to see others and yourself on the basis on beliefs.

Look man, if you really want to see the world objectively you must take away your veil of beliefs. Just forget for a while God/s, angles, and demons. Focus on the natural world (most probabbly you will not see anyone of them).

Atheists, Agnostics, Scientist are endevouring to look on bare data and try to figure and the pattern they are pointing. Absolute certainty and beliefs are null and errilevant. what matters is the evidence and the direction they might lead. In fact, Scientific theories are probationary in nature and are not viewed as abolute truths as religions have. Yet they are considered as the most precise description of reality currently and has by far produce the wonders of our technological world. Evolutionary theory infact has many applications, it is a practical science and has produce results in designing antibiotics, Artifical Selection, Medicine, Computer Science, and bio molecular technologies. Creationism and Intelleligent Design however did not have any useful and practical applications in the real world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Applications_of_evolution

if your mind was so condition to beleive on absolute certainty as a result of religious upbringing you may find it difficult how to see the reality of our world objectively as many posters here have.

So try to set asside your hardcoded beliefs first, and listen with an open mind. then after pondering for many months or years on this issue of yours, weighing both sides, come back here and post what you have find.

15

Does the average JW know anything about Menlo Park?

by serenitynow! in

is there any way to interest jws in the menlo park situation so they can see the court proceedings where the jws admit to being like the catholic church?.

dark angle

they have no interest in anything thats not printed in the Watchtower, anything else including the news media is Satans lies.

So true!

9

LOVE THOSE STATISTICS!

by clarity in

love these stats from jwfacts /jehovah's witnesess.

"this is one of the most telling graphs, showing that the number of people leaving has tripled from the rate in the early 1990's.

for the 10 years from 1986 to 1995 the rate was an average of 12%; for the 10 years from 1996 to 2005 it had risen to 41%.".

dark angle

I spotted a mystical interpretation. wtf! an astrological interpretation for a superstitious borg.hehehhehehehe.

Anyways its the advance of technology, information and education thats weaning off religious mysticism aroung the world.

45

Jehovah's Witnesses And The Paranormal

by Cold Steel in

i understand that the jehovah's witnesses are paranoid when it comes to the paranormal.. how far do the roots of this paranoia go?

has anyone ever had any personal paranormal experiences or know of anyone who has (first hand)?.

and what are some of the more popular stories that get retold in jw circles?.

dark angle

Believing on a supernatural God requires a corresponding beliefs on Satan and Demons. hehehehhehehe. thats what you get when anyone, including JWs, succumb to superstition.

My wife, will put Watchtower publication and bible on her bed, near her head, to ward off nightmares. hehehhehehe. dreamcatcher of sorts.

JWs by default are paranormal believers.

48

Creation, evolution, the flood and science - Is the Bible without error?

by Andrew Sh in

[if gte mso 9]><xml> <o:officedocumentsettings> <o:allowpng /> </o:officedocumentsettings> </xml><!

[endif][if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:worddocument> <w:view>normal</w:view> <w:zoom>0</w:zoom> <w:trackmoves /> <w:trackformatting /> <w:punctuationkerning /> <w:validateagainstschemas /> <w:saveifxmlinvalid>false</w:saveifxmlinvalid> <w:ignoremixedcontent>false</w:ignoremixedcontent> <w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext>false</w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext> <w:donotpromoteqf /> <w:lidthemeother>en-gb</w:lidthemeother> <w:lidthemeasian>x-none</w:lidthemeasian> <w:lidthemecomplexscript>x-none</w:lidthemecomplexscript> <w:compatibility> <w:breakwrappedtables /> <w:snaptogridincell /> <w:wraptextwithpunct /> <w:useasianbreakrules /> <w:dontgrowautofit /> <w:splitpgbreakandparamark /> <w:enableopentypekerning /> <w:dontflipmirrorindents /> <w:overridetablestylehps /> </w:compatibility> <m:mathpr> <m:mathfont m:val="cambria math" /> <m:brkbin m:val="before" /> <m:brkbinsub m:val="--" /> <m:smallfrac m:val="off" /> <m:dispdef /> <m:lmargin m:val="0" /> <m:rmargin m:val="0" /> <m:defjc m:val="centergroup" /> <m:wrapindent m:val="1440" /> <m:intlim m:val="subsup" /> <m:narylim m:val="undovr" /> </m:mathpr></w:worddocument> </xml><!

[endif][if gte mso 10]> <mce:style><!

dark angle

God is the ultimate superstition invented, a vestage from our ignorant past.

that is my view, until otherwise proven :)

“We can judge our progress by the courage of our questions and the depth of our answers, our willingness to embrace what is true rather than what feels good.”
? Carl Sagan

48

Creation, evolution, the flood and science - Is the Bible without error?

by Andrew Sh in

[if gte mso 9]><xml> <o:officedocumentsettings> <o:allowpng /> </o:officedocumentsettings> </xml><!

[endif][if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:worddocument> <w:view>normal</w:view> <w:zoom>0</w:zoom> <w:trackmoves /> <w:trackformatting /> <w:punctuationkerning /> <w:validateagainstschemas /> <w:saveifxmlinvalid>false</w:saveifxmlinvalid> <w:ignoremixedcontent>false</w:ignoremixedcontent> <w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext>false</w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext> <w:donotpromoteqf /> <w:lidthemeother>en-gb</w:lidthemeother> <w:lidthemeasian>x-none</w:lidthemeasian> <w:lidthemecomplexscript>x-none</w:lidthemecomplexscript> <w:compatibility> <w:breakwrappedtables /> <w:snaptogridincell /> <w:wraptextwithpunct /> <w:useasianbreakrules /> <w:dontgrowautofit /> <w:splitpgbreakandparamark /> <w:enableopentypekerning /> <w:dontflipmirrorindents /> <w:overridetablestylehps /> </w:compatibility> <m:mathpr> <m:mathfont m:val="cambria math" /> <m:brkbin m:val="before" /> <m:brkbinsub m:val="--" /> <m:smallfrac m:val="off" /> <m:dispdef /> <m:lmargin m:val="0" /> <m:rmargin m:val="0" /> <m:defjc m:val="centergroup" /> <m:wrapindent m:val="1440" /> <m:intlim m:val="subsup" /> <m:narylim m:val="undovr" /> </m:mathpr></w:worddocument> </xml><!

[endif][if gte mso 10]> <mce:style><!

dark angle

"Really reducing my workload" sounds great Flat Accent... but is that the basis upon which we should proceed in life?

We should base our lives on reality. And how do we study reality? we have science and technology to aid us in our quest in studying our natural universe. This is a lot better than letting superstition guide our life.

In the ancient past, humankind has heavily relied on human senses to make sense of the world, and since this a very crued way to observe our reality, mankind succumb to superstition when confronted with questions and events that are beyound what we can explain. we invented elaborate myths and religion to make sense on the unexplained phenomina.....and somehow this also gave some comfort and meaning to our ancestors existence.

Today we know that our feable sense is not a good device to study natures' secrets. Our eyes can only detect a tiny band on the electromanetic spectrum. Our nose cannot even match the dog's sense of smell. we are blind to echolocation, we cant see germs, molecules, virus, and the invisible subatomic particles. We can hardly comprehend the vastness of our galaxy, much more the universe. Modern humans aware of these limitations, can understand that in order to measure the mysteries of reality, we should not rely on common sense. Now we have powerful machines that can aid us in searching for truth.

That is why i love science. Science is nothing but a systematic study of reality. Self correcting & advancing technique in learning. This is the Method of Study that we humans should be proud of.

4

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

by dark angle in

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.

dark angle

Funny our discussion continued:

Him: Uhmm this post/thread is about Dawkins being more of an evangelist than a real scientist..which Shapiro clearly pointed out. hehe

Me: They are both evolutionary scientist with different attitudes. that's all :)

The evangelist are those who wants to cherry pick quote scientist to fit their propaganda while ignoring what they really meant as a whole.

Richard Dawkins words are still valid, that Darwins' idea was right, and that it's the only possib le answer to the mystery of the variety of life on our planet. Darwin may be wrong on the details on how evolution occur, the processes and mechanisms that guided evolution, but was entirely right that life did evolve. Limited by the technology on his time, he maybe wrong on some details, but entirely right in General, that life was, is , and will evolve.

Here's Shapiro's entire blog:
http:// www.huffingtonpost.com/ james-a-shapiro/ evolution-debate_b_1425133. html

4

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

by dark angle in

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.

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

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.

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