Awesome post. The fact that you mentioned that we use dish soap proves that you're really in the biz. In my initial posts I said I run a "janitorial company" to protect my identity. Now I realize that admitting that I run a window cleaning company narrows it down to... 80% of witnessses. My identity is secure.
Galileo
JoinedPosts by Galileo
-
19
Now open "Harvard Witness Window Cleaners University"
by Witness 007 insince the society has banned higher education the "harvard witness window cleaners university" offers witnesses many courses to better themselves.....in field service.
1. phd in window ledge wiping.
2. masters degree in scraping paint off glass.
-
-
-
11
Lawrence Hughes: My daughter could have lived... (Youtube)?????????
by Fisherman incan anyone document allegations made on this video.
since jws are not allowed to give medical advice, the accusations made regarding arsenic treatment are not credible.
-
-
Galileo
Anyone have a working Youtube link? edit: Apparently it's not just this video. I can't get embedded youtube videos to play on any website, in any browser. Weird. Anyone have a direct link?
-
26
Do you keep your Yellow Pages phone books? Or pitch them when they arrive?
by AlmostAtheist ini just got a fresh supply of yellow pages books.
three huge volumes in a plastic bag.
it's my 3rd shipment this year, from various suppliers, i assume.
-
-
Galileo
Hey maybe I'll start a decent site that works and make my fortune.
Larry Page and Sergey Brin beat you to it. It's called Google.
-
24
Do you believe in life after death?
by cameo-d indo you think we go on in "some form"?
do you believe we will be brought back to life in a similar body?
(would that be reincarnation or just a single resurrection?).
-
-
Galileo
Does this mean that your deeds---good or bad---only count for "in the moment"?
Depends what you do. Some deeds have far reaching effects, like the holocaust or Martin Luthers' separation from the Catholic church. But I don't believe anyone faces consequences for their deeds after their death.
Do you think the idea of "afterlife" was just a method to keep people in line thinking there would be a greater reward for "doing right"?
I believe this is only a small part of it, "Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful." - Seneca the Younger.
I believe it originated much more in our natural fear of death.
If the majority of people did not believe in an afterlife and someone to account to...do you think it would be even more barbaric...like "get what you can" at anyone's expense? Or do you think people would treasure each other more knowing this is all?
Atheists commit less crime than believers. The American prison system is full of Christians.
-
24
Do you believe in life after death?
by cameo-d indo you think we go on in "some form"?
do you believe we will be brought back to life in a similar body?
(would that be reincarnation or just a single resurrection?).
-
-
Galileo
No, I don't. Not even a little bit. Why? Because I do my best not to believe in things without evidence. Even if those things make me feel better.
-
44
How to Debate an Evolutionist (if you must)
by hooberus inthis thread is primarily directed to biblical creationists and other non-evolutionists here (as such no or limited responses will be given to evolutionist posts here).
please if you are a non-evolutionist attempt to refrain from debating evolutionists here on this thread, as they will likely try to derail any learning, or exposure of their tactics.
i will try to avoid debating here but instead posting information in a series of posts.. i consider myself to be an informed biblical creationist and probably one of more experienced creation/evolution issue debaters to have been on this forum.
-
-
Galileo
You make a good point. I think a good example is "abiogenesis". They say it is not important, but they do need show how evolution started.
The vast majority of those that accept the theory of evolution, including the pope, don't believe in abiogenesis. Abiogenesis may or may not have happened. The difference between science and religious dogma is that science has no problem admitting where the data is lacking and adapting to better data or a more complete explanation. We have a powerful theory of how life evolves, complete with massive fossil evidence showing transitions, DNA showing gradual change, ERV insertions proving common descent, etc. etc.
We have no hard evidence for abiogenesis. We have hypotheses and some lab experiments showing some possibilities, but it is nowhere near the level of a scientific theory, and so what? It is possible that we will never be able to prove abiogenesis, and so what? Are creationists bringing a theory to the table? Even a better hypothesis? No. There is no evidence for creation. Creation is not a better model. If evolution were a religion, than scientists would take the religionists' shortcut, and say that the first organisms were always in existence, as creationists claim for god. Evidence be damned. But they don't. They say we don't know, because we don't. And neither do you.
-
44
How to Debate an Evolutionist (if you must)
by hooberus inthis thread is primarily directed to biblical creationists and other non-evolutionists here (as such no or limited responses will be given to evolutionist posts here).
please if you are a non-evolutionist attempt to refrain from debating evolutionists here on this thread, as they will likely try to derail any learning, or exposure of their tactics.
i will try to avoid debating here but instead posting information in a series of posts.. i consider myself to be an informed biblical creationist and probably one of more experienced creation/evolution issue debaters to have been on this forum.
-
-
Galileo
Hooberus, you highlighted the wrong sentence:
And as man from a genealogical point of view belongs to the Catarrhine or Old World stock
That's from your own Darwin quote. It's saying that the common ancestor is a monkey only in as much as we are still monkeys. Your point here is largely semantics, and I don't really understand why you feel that insisting on this point makes your argument stronger. Perhaps you could explain how, from the point of a debate, winning this point will put you at an advantage.
-
44
How to Debate an Evolutionist (if you must)
by hooberus inthis thread is primarily directed to biblical creationists and other non-evolutionists here (as such no or limited responses will be given to evolutionist posts here).
please if you are a non-evolutionist attempt to refrain from debating evolutionists here on this thread, as they will likely try to derail any learning, or exposure of their tactics.
i will try to avoid debating here but instead posting information in a series of posts.. i consider myself to be an informed biblical creationist and probably one of more experienced creation/evolution issue debaters to have been on this forum.
-
-
Galileo
and why doesn't the common ancester still exist?
The same reason 99.9% of all life forms that have ever existed are now extinct.
-
44
How to Debate an Evolutionist (if you must)
by hooberus inthis thread is primarily directed to biblical creationists and other non-evolutionists here (as such no or limited responses will be given to evolutionist posts here).
please if you are a non-evolutionist attempt to refrain from debating evolutionists here on this thread, as they will likely try to derail any learning, or exposure of their tactics.
i will try to avoid debating here but instead posting information in a series of posts.. i consider myself to be an informed biblical creationist and probably one of more experienced creation/evolution issue debaters to have been on this forum.
-
-
Galileo
The alleged common ancestor of humans and modern apes was even more "primitive" than the modern apes which supposedly descended from it. Therefore what (non-modern ape) specific "traits similar to modern humans" could such a creature have possessed?
As per your stated reason for this thread, I'm not going to debate this point. I was merely trying to help you form the best argument you could. If you want to waste your time continuing to argue a point on which you are factually incorrect, be my guest. If you want to debate this specific point, then one of the multitude of other threads on evolutin would probably be a better place to do it.
-
44
How to Debate an Evolutionist (if you must)
by hooberus inthis thread is primarily directed to biblical creationists and other non-evolutionists here (as such no or limited responses will be given to evolutionist posts here).
please if you are a non-evolutionist attempt to refrain from debating evolutionists here on this thread, as they will likely try to derail any learning, or exposure of their tactics.
i will try to avoid debating here but instead posting information in a series of posts.. i consider myself to be an informed biblical creationist and probably one of more experienced creation/evolution issue debaters to have been on this forum.
-
-
Galileo
Evolution doesn't teach that people came from apes!
I understand your desire for this to be a debate tutorial and not a debate thread in itself, so let me just correct you on this. Evolution doesn't teach that people came from apes. Trying to argue this point with an evolutionist will immediately show you as someone that is ignorant of the subject. If you wnat to use the terminology "ancient apes" this might not be objectionable, so long as you're clear on what that means. Evolutionary theory teaches that in the distant past, humans and modern great apes had a common ancestor that shared some traits similar to modern apes and some traits similar to modern humans. Saying that humans descended from apes is akin to saying that you descended from me, since at some point we both had a common ancestor. It is simply factually wrong.