i read in wikapedia about joseph f. rutherford that according to the san diego coroner's report that he was dead days before that date of death in jan,1942.
he had rat bites on his head and hands.
i thought he died in bed but he was found on a flight of stairs.
He apparently in an already druken stupor went down to the cellar to get some more booze, tripped and hit his head, the rats had a feast. Now you can published that God's great Bible expositor and scholar tripped over his own feet and got eaten by rats, so they made up the story that he died peacefully in bed, with Franz, Knorr and MacMillan at his side.
It would be great if this could be corroborated with some names. Maybe someone has some more info - I've never heard this story before.
inspired by dawkins' notion of universal darwinism, biologists have been trying to prove that all sorts of evolution can be explained by a simple paradigm of random mutation and natural selection.
because of dawkins' ardor to spread the word, many have no idea there's far more to discover about evolutionary mechanisms beyond natural selection.. one of these challenges to dawkins' universal darwinism is called the endosymbiotic theory, popularized by lynn margulis in the 90s.
she's known for her bold rejection of some neo-darwinian interpretations.
Thanks for the link. That was a great thread, and I probably never would have read it, as it was before my time here. I noticed you conspicuously didn't mention your own viewpoint. I would guess perhaps you're a theistic agnostic? If you don't want to discuss it, that's cool.
inspired by dawkins' notion of universal darwinism, biologists have been trying to prove that all sorts of evolution can be explained by a simple paradigm of random mutation and natural selection.
because of dawkins' ardor to spread the word, many have no idea there's far more to discover about evolutionary mechanisms beyond natural selection.. one of these challenges to dawkins' universal darwinism is called the endosymbiotic theory, popularized by lynn margulis in the 90s.
she's known for her bold rejection of some neo-darwinian interpretations.
hamilcarr, I wasn't responding to you specifically, many have responded in this thread. This was my statement:
The only explanation I can see is that perhaps the hatred of Richard Dawkins in the religious community is so great that anything seeming to show he's wrong on any point is seen as a pearl of great price. I think you are wasting time and effort here.
I was saying here as in this line of reasoning, not here as in this thread or in this forum. I'm sorry if that was interpreted as my saying this thread was a waste of time. I actually found reading Lynn Margulis quite interesting. Also:
I'm not a religious person but still believe this scientific theory is more accurate than Dawkins'.
It's not a theory, it's a hypothesis about the mechanisms for the theory of evolution. As I stated, Richard Dawkins accepts those parts of her hypothesis that have to date been tested and supported by the evidence. And whether you belong to a religion or not, even a cursory glance at your history seems to shows you believe in god, forgive me if that is incorrect, I don't want to make inaccurate assumptions. If that is the case, then my point about the religious community could apply equally well. Just substitute "amongst believers" for "the religious community". It still seems to me that the strong reactions of many here have been motivated by a dislike of Richard Dawkins, and that largely because of his atheist activism, rather than a genuine excitement over the possiblity of a new understanding of one mechanism of evolution.
i posted a thread earlier this week about a conversation i had with my jw ex-wife.
the next day i sent her this e-mail.
one should never be afraid of ideas.
Absolutely excellent letter seeker. If she actually read it, I guarantee you gave her a lot to think about. Realizing that people leave "The Truth" because they actually don't believe it was a major eye opener for me that may very well have been my first real step toward the door. And my own loss of faith in the organization also dovetailed my loss of faith in the bible. If I ever have the occasion to write my own family, I will use your email as a reference. Nicely done.
inspired by dawkins' notion of universal darwinism, biologists have been trying to prove that all sorts of evolution can be explained by a simple paradigm of random mutation and natural selection.
because of dawkins' ardor to spread the word, many have no idea there's far more to discover about evolutionary mechanisms beyond natural selection.. one of these challenges to dawkins' universal darwinism is called the endosymbiotic theory, popularized by lynn margulis in the 90s.
she's known for her bold rejection of some neo-darwinian interpretations.
Lynn Margulis has made a valuable contribution to the understanding of evolution, specifically concerning the origins mitochondria and plastids. Her hypothesis pertaining to this area of evolution is now widely accepted and has led to a more full understanding of how evolution works, alongside other mechanisms, such as natural selection. She also has many other ideas that are not yet supported by evidence. Some eventually may be, and many of her others will no doubt eventually be falsified. This is how science works. Most hypotheses are eventually falsified. She feels competition is over emphasized as an evolutionary driving force, but so far the weight of the evidence is against her in this particular hypothesis. As her hypothesis is tested, eventually she may be proven correct, and the standard model will change.
I think this entire "fight" is being blown way out of proportion. "Fights" of this kind are just science. Lynn Margulis believes passionately in her ideas and argues vociferously against contrary ideas. Good for her. Science needs such personalities in order for ideas to be thoroughly vetted. I'm kind of baffled as to why religious people have taken this one hypothesis and clung to it like it's the second coming. She's not proposng that she has evidence against evolution by any means, only a new mechanism for it. The only explanation I can see is that perhaps the hatred of Richard Dawkins in the religious community is so great that anything seeming to show he's wrong on any point is seen as a pearl of great price. I think you are wasting time and effort here. Science doesn't have infallible leaders. No one expects any scientist to be correct all the time. Even Richard Dwkins himself has praised Lynn Margulis' endosymbiotic theory, which he once argued against.
how many elders and ms are in this forum?
let's have a survey.
an elder here..
I banged a ex ministeral servant once.
Would you like to make it two? Send me a PM. (Just kidding. Unless you're into it )
1/ the end of this system issues
2/ the sign for the end of the system i.e earthquakes/famine/pesterlance/war
what other claims can we test to see if they are true?
www.jwfacts.com lists a great many. Earthquakes, chronology, blood, blatant dishonesty. What have they gotten right?
while playing grand theft auto 4 today i discovered that in the mock new york city of the game called liberty city there is a building exactly where the watchtower would be called instead "clock tower".
each place has a mock name i guess to avoid trouble.
outside of the buildings are shipping carts full of boxes which i guess have magazines and books inside them.
GTA IV is awesome! I'm gonna try and find this now! Where's my rocket launcher!
the "ever-changing doctrine" of the watchtower org.
is now creating an "incubator of doubts" that seems to be "hatching" this so-called "new breed" of witnesses.
watchtower publications written with purposeful ambiguous articles seems to be allowing many witnesses to become extremely liberal in their way of thinking.the watchtower org's view, as of late, in making more things a conscience matter, blood issues, voting, alternative service, organ transplants, attending weddings and funerals in churches, celebrating holidays, etc.
Galileo - please make a plan to get yourself and your social group out of this cult. If you don't change anything, you will be in the same position forever. Don't waste your life with one foot in a cult - or if I'm jumping in too hard here let me know :-)
I appreciate your concern. Yes, I have a plan. I'm not going to keep one foot in forever. There are specific reasons why I can't just walk away immediately, but by this time next year I'll be one hudred percent out, and I can't wait. Hopefully I'll be able to open some more eyes in the meantime. I think so.
( one recent post indicated this 90% figure) .
i don't wish to debate the pro's and con's of atheism, just help me understand your personal.
reasonings for this huge difference in figures.
Not all Catholics believe in evolution. And the ones who do don't always have Darwin's take on it.
The same is true of atheists. I was speaking of the Catholic church's official stance, straight from the pope. And I agree, Catholic Charities do a lot of good. I do wish they'd stop teachings that spread AIDS in th third world, though. But on the whole there are several catholic charities I would have no problem giving money to.
