hawkaw

Joined

• started 169 topics
• posted 3,451 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by hawkaw

• 
  40

  The Slow Death of the WTS (from the WT 15 Feb 2005)

  by ezekiel3 in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  i will defer the details of this gem to blondie when she sinks her teeth into the wt study articles scheduled for march 21-april 3. until then sample this:.

  watchtower 15 feb 2005 "christians - be proud of who you are!

  " (pg 12-16) .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hawkaw

  BTTT
• 
  17

  Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ for Evolution Theory

  by hawkaw in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i thought some on this board, including alan f. might find this frequently answered questions on transitional vertebrate fossils interesting.

  many creationist leaning individuals seem to really misunderstand (or refuse to understand) transitional vertebrate fossils and how they are used in evolution theory.

  http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hawkaw

  Oh brother, I just got finished reading the one article on did landscape evolve. It is disgusting how people will twist proper erosional processes that are observed in the field today and then completely twist and/or ignore them to prove this big old world is only a few thousand years old.
• 
  17

  Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ for Evolution Theory

  by hawkaw in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i thought some on this board, including alan f. might find this frequently answered questions on transitional vertebrate fossils interesting.

  many creationist leaning individuals seem to really misunderstand (or refuse to understand) transitional vertebrate fossils and how they are used in evolution theory.

  http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hawkaw

  Scholar, those finds were not made by evolutionists. Those findings were observed by scientists in the field and subject to peer review. Those independent field observations and lab tests on the field items are used as an independent basis to explain a logical mechanism. As I said before, be very careful with your definitions. Remember, this is science subject and not a religious subject. Religion deals with belief. Your religionist beliefs have no place in science just like science has no place in religion (of course, the only execption to that rule seems to be the WTS's policy on blood which uses science and not the bible to allow for their definitions of what blood parts are acceptable and what parts are not).

  hawk
• 
  17

  Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ for Evolution Theory

  by hawkaw in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i thought some on this board, including alan f. might find this frequently answered questions on transitional vertebrate fossils interesting.

  many creationist leaning individuals seem to really misunderstand (or refuse to understand) transitional vertebrate fossils and how they are used in evolution theory.

  http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hawkaw

  From the above-noted url link in the first post of this thread:

  A Bit Of Historical Background

  When The Origin Of Species was first published, the fossil record was poorly known. At that time, the complaint about the lack of transitional fossils bridging the major vertebrate taxa was perfectly reasonable. Opponents of Darwin's theory of common descent (the theory that evolution has occurred; not to be confused with the separate theory that evolution occurs specifically by natural selection) were justifiably skeptical of such ideas as birds being related to reptiles. The discovery of Archeopteryx only two years after the publication of The Origin of Species was seen a stunning triumph for Darwin's theory of common descent. Archeopteryx has been called the single most important natural history specimen ever found, "comparable to the Rosetta Stone" (Alan Feduccia, in "The Age Of Birds"). O.C. Marsh's groundbreaking study of the evolution of horses was another dramatic example of transitional fossils, this time demonstrating a whole sequence of transitions within a single family. Within a few decades after the Origin, these and other fossils, along with many other sources of evidence (such as developmental biology and biogeography) had convinced the majority of educated people that evolution had occurred, and that organisms are related to each other by common descent.

  Since then, many more transitional fossils have been found, as sketched out in this FAQ. Typically, the only people who still demand to see transitional fossils are either unaware of the currently known fossil record (often due to the shoddy and very dated arguments presented in current creationist articles) or are unwilling to believe it for some reason.

  What Does The Fossil Record Show Us Now?

  I think the most noticeable aspects of the vertebrate fossil record, those which must be explained by any good model of the development of life on earth, are:

  1. A remarkable temporal pattern of fossil morphology, with "an obvious tendency for successively higher and more recent fossil assemblages to resemble modern floras and faunas ever more closely" (Gingerich, 1985) and with animal groups appearing in a certain unmistakable order. For example, primitive fish appear first, amphibians later, then reptiles, then primitive mammals, then (for example) legged whales, then legless whales. This temporal- morphological correlation is very striking, and appears to point overwhelmingly toward an origin of all vertebrates from a common ancestor.
  2. Numerous "chains of genera" that appear to link early, primitive genera with much more recent, radically different genera (e.g. reptile- mammal transition, hyenids, horses, elephants), and through which major morphological changes can be traced. Even for the spottiest gaps, there are a few isolated intermediates that show how two apparently very different groups could, in fact, be related to each other (ex. Archeopteryx, linking reptiles to birds).
  3. Many known species-to-species transitions (primarily known for the relatively recent Cenozoic mammals), often crossing genus lines and occasionally family lines, and often resulting in substantial adaptive changes.
  4. A large number of gaps. This is perhaps the aspect that is easiest to explain, since for stratigraphic reasons alone there must always be gaps. In fact, no current evolutionary model predicts or requires a complete fossil record, and no one expects that the fossil record will ever be even close to complete. As a rule of thumb, however, creationists think the gaps show fundamental biological discontinuities, while evolutionary biologists think they are the inevitable result of chance fossilizations, chance discoveries, and immigration events.
• 
  67

  Jim Penton

  by Greenpalmtreestillmine in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  jim penton wrote on channel c:.

  "posted by jimpenton on sun - oct 31 - 6:48pm: .

  .... therefore, i want to devote the last years of my life (i am 72)to more positive, upbuilding activities such as giving a testimony to my faith through manifesting the fruits of the spirit, attempting to minister to the widows and orphans in their affliction, and to giving a positive witness through my writing.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hawkaw

  hmm ...

  .. I remember a Dr. Penton coming to this board to basically stick up for his friend during a very unfortunate ... sigh .... squabble between two very great gentlemen - Mr. Bowen and Mr. Franz. Unfortunately I was less than impressed with Dr. Penton's attitude toward certain people in his post ... almost discrimatory if I recall and I ... if memory serves ... let Jim have it since I thought he could be a good expert witness in court cases for many issues and expert witnesses shouldn't be on public discussion boards saying certain things. Sorry about that Jim ...

  Having said that negative which I wish never happened, let's talk some positive.

  I was but one of many persons trying desparately to get expert people to come forward both for CBC's production of the JW abuse issues and the Boer civil case. Jim answered the call from Mexico, Anderson from Tennessee, Bowen from Kentucky and many many many others from around the world and of course in Ontario and the rest of Canada. Dr. Penton along with the Andersons and a few others came to 361 University in Toronto and sat in a court house full of JWs who were completely against Vicki Boer (In their Shelburne congregation twisted minds, Vicki was the antichrist). It was Penton and Anderson who volunteered to be expert witnesses for Ms. Boer. Penton also sat with L. Gerrerrio of CBC and provided her many great insights into the JWs so that abuse story could get aired in January 2003. Never mind the other CBC Fifith Estate show that Penton did some 10-15 years ago. It was quite a sight seeing the Andersons and Dr. Penton sitting side by side in that court house (Of course on that day Glen How loudly tuning his hearing aid device for many minutes in the midst of a very quiet courtroom while the Judge looked over her bi-focals at the learned How stole the show ....).

  My point is, Dr. Penton through his books, interviews, testimony et. al. has done so much to try and get the leadership in the Watchtower organization to be held accountable and to change its dangerous ways. He has walked the walk and at the risk of being sued by a billion dollar company that has an army of lawyers who supposedly work without remuneration.

  I kindly thank Dr. Penton for all of his help he has provided to those in need and protecting those who were thinking of joining this dangerous organization, and, I kindly say to him that he only needs to do as much as he feels since he found out what freedom is really all about (.... unless it has to do with a request from Barb Anderson and if that is the case then by orders of the supreme great commander of the universe, Jim you are authorized to help Barb in any way she asks (snicker)).

  hawk
• 
  17

  Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ for Evolution Theory

  by hawkaw in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i thought some on this board, including alan f. might find this frequently answered questions on transitional vertebrate fossils interesting.

  many creationist leaning individuals seem to really misunderstand (or refuse to understand) transitional vertebrate fossils and how they are used in evolution theory.

  http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hawkaw

  I thought some on this board, including Alan F. might find this Frequently Answered Questions on Transitional Vertebrate Fossils interesting. Many creationist leaning individuals seem to really misunderstand (or refuse to understand) Transitional Vertebrate Fossils and how they are used in evolution theory.
  

  http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

  It also goes into a little about biblical creation and scientific evolution theory. It also tries reaching some conclusions in a few different ways regarding evolution theory and creationism. But, the document's main point is Transitional Vertebrate Fossils exist.

  Remember when reading articles like this, one should be very careful when one starts discussing sciencific terms compared to our normal everyday use of the terms. For example, a hypothesis in simple scientific terms would be an idea. A scientific theory in science is a way of explaining a mechanism. A law in science is used to describe a mechanism (or predict a result of observations that have not been made - eg - Newton's law of gravity). Scientific theories explain the process based on independent observations in the laboratory or field that can be replicated and are subject to intense peer review. If observations do not exist, we generally move out of theory and into philosphy.

  One should also keep in mind that religious beliefs is a completely different animal compared to independent scientific examinations.

  Hope it helps.

  Take care,

  hawk
• 
  865

  WoMD ... so where are they?

  by Simon in

  1. social
  2. current

  now, the war is over, the weapons were not used and of course have not been found.. how threatening could they be if they did not even use them when being invaded by a massive force (of the countries they hate)?!

  perhaps, as many suspect, they didn't use them because they didn't have them?.

  now we're being told that we'll have to be patient and give them time to find them.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hawkaw

  Respectfully Simon the Inspection team found (what the UN considers) some 52 WMD ordinance including but not limited to the binary sarin gas shell. That weapon alone could have killed a few thousand people. The CIA report by the Inspection Team also found what could be considered one stockpile of WMDs (I think in part 3 go to pages 29 and 30 if memory serves).
  

  Clearly I think what you meant to say is that the intelligence group has not found "stockpiles" of WMDs. At least that is how the press moved the goal posts in this "optic" war or words. Then the press slips up, as it does in Canada, and just states there were no WMDs in Iraq.

  Clearly, the USA intelligence should have done a better job but this war was more than just WMDs as anyone in the know will tell you. For starters Iraq was in clear violation of UN resolution 1441 and many others. Its conduct to Kuwait and other counties was a serious concern for the USA and lets face it - when one starts knocking down American buildings and the leader of Iraq is cheering about it - Iraq was just asking for it. It's too bad Powel, Bush and others didn't do more to sell the invasion. It was much like how Clinton tried to sell a war with Iraq back in 1998 but also failed due to his Monica Lewinsky scandal.

  I think people should have done a better job in explaining how the French, Russians and others at the UN were being bribed by the Iraqi government through the oil for food scandal. If we didn't have that scandal, I think the security council's reaction would have been much different in February 2003.

  I think there are people in this world like you who feel that the Iraq war was unjust while no doubt you feel the halfganistan conflict was just (or maybe you don't). I now feel both wars were just and in the long term will create a very healthy and safe middle east. I now see what our exit strategy is and the long term.

  Remember war is hell and very violent. Fact is we are in it whether we like it or not and thus we need to support our troops (who volunteered to join the military) and their mission.

  See you later.

  hawk
• 
  149

  Watchtower Observer site goes down

  by Norm in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  hey folks,.

  an era in the ex-jw history is over.

  kent steinhaug's site http://watchtower.observer.org is being shut down.. it was the first of it's kind, and to this day probably still the largest anti wt site on the net.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hawkaw

  This is too bad. Kent's site has all sorts of great stuff on it.
• 
  9

  Help (Hemopure)

  by caballoSentado in

  1. watchtower
  2. medical

  there is an old jw person i love, who may undergo heart surgery, i told him about hemopure.

  so i need help from you, where can i get information about it?...

  specially in relation to jws?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hawkaw

  My understanding is that hemopure and the other substitues are in testing phases only. As such, these treatments are not allowed to be provided to the general public and at all of the hospitals.

  Maybe one should consult their physician and talk to someone at Hemopure or the other companies. I would urge the you to send an Email to the head of ajwrb. Go to www. ajwrb.org for further information.

  hawk
• 
  11

  Berry girls case: Analysis of case law favorable to the WTS

  by loveis in

  1. watchtower
  2. child-abuse

  ok, just to play devil's advocate for a minute here (or, now for our weekly session of classroom law on court tv .

  posted below is a past new hampshire supreme court case that is very favorable to the wts position in the berry girls' case, and has surely been cited by them big time in their briefs (it was mentioned briefly by wts lawyer donald gardner in the audio, which has been posted on these boards several times, of the oral argument session before the nh supreme court.

  laws 1971, 531:2. in 1973, the penalty section was amended to provide that a violation would constitute a misdemeanor.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hawkaw

  I am well aware that a lawsuit cannot be brought based on the requirments of a Statute that a third party must report a crime. I think the Supremes have allowed a suit using a statute involving third parties but only in a limited sense.

  However, the Berry case relied more heavily on the torts and as well as the statute. In the writ or Statement of Claim, the Berry's lawyers said what happened to the Berry ladies was considered a tort of "common negligence" for not reporting after the elders found out about the abuse.

  Also the lawyers tried to use fiducary duty as a way of saying that WTS elders were a special group who the Berry girls had to rely on. Thus, when Paul Berry did his nasty business, the elders had a duty to report the abuse because they have a special relationship with the Berry girls (this would be similar to lawyers and doctors).

  I think they also used other torts as well if memory serves.

  The Supreme Court in Maine heard a similar case called Brian R. v. Watchtower. The "Tower" won on summary judgement because Brian R.'s lawyer failed to prove a fiducary duty existed between the elders (or agents of the Watchtower) and Brian. The court ruled that Brian R. can;t just say a fiducary duty existed. Brian R. actually had to provide examples to prove his case.

  As for the Berry case, the Judge Groff ruled in summary judgement that a tort of common negligence" existed in the Berry v. Watchtower case based on certain state case law. He also ruled that it would take very little effort for the elders to report the abuse and should ought to have in this case.

  Oddly, the Judge ruled that not enough proof was provided that a fiducary duty existed. I was kinda shocked especially after all the effort people like Bill Bowen and Barb put into the writ with counsel.

  Where the case went south was for some god unknown reason to man kind, Judge Groff ruled that a rule in testifying in front of a court of law involving clerical privilige applied to the elders with respect to reporting the abuse. As such, Groff ruled in a second summary judgement for the Tower and the case went to the N.H. Supreme Court.

  Here in Canada, in cases such as Regina v. C.T.C and Regina v. J.P.P., Judges have ruled that elders do not have clerical privilge. Maybe one day the USA Judges will wake up and smell the coffee.

  For your information I have been in touch with the Clerk at the Supreme Court in N.H.. The court has a guideline for written decisions on cases to be finished within 6 months. Look for this Berry case out before April, 2005.

  Also keep in mind that N.H. supreme court will be deciding the issue of statute of limitations in this case as the Tower lawyers believe that the Berry girls waited to long to launch a lawsuit. Groff ruled that the Berry girls did not know the elders were aware of the abuse until many years later when the Berry girls mother finally told Holly and Heather that she had went to the elders and the elders advice was to go home and be a good wife.

  You can keep track of when the decision comes out by going to the following url link.

  http://www.courts.state.nh.us/supreme/opinions/index.htm

  Personnally I am not very confident about this case anymore. This tort of common law negligence that Groff found was shot down in flames in Minnesota both at the court and supreme court level and I have a sneaky feeling it is going to happen in N.H. as well.

  Take care and lets hope for the best that this case makes it to the court house in front of a very sympathic jury..

  hawk