after being a jw made me lose trust in religion, from the lies, hypocrisy and greed of this organization made me lose faith completely.
what does one do after this mind f$%@, what is there to look forward to?
do i make up my own agnostic theory in head and hope for the best?
One thing being a JW did real well is show you how all other religions are False - so when you find out JWs are false, well - why would you go to one of the others.
In addition to taking scripture out of context, the Watchtower misrepresents the teachings of others order to make them appear false. For example, they have misrepresented the Trinity for years in several ways. People leave the Watchtower and still hold these strawman beliefs.
do i have to believe in jesus to be saved?.
i was raised as a jehovah's witness.
i was born in.
"Those on here can perhaps point me to resources where they beleive these facts are. What's wrong with asking and having a discussion on a discussion forum?"
One of the best books for understanding evolution is the book "The Biotic Message"
It has helped me with some technical issues and especially for understanding the "flexability" and untestability of evolution.
http://saintpaulscience.com/contents.htm
I don't agree with everything in the book since I am a biblical creationist. That said, the book is phenomenal for understanding evolution.
Also see publications by the creationresearch society.
The website "expreacherman.com" has a lot of information defending salvation by grace without works.
do i have to believe in jesus to be saved?.
i was raised as a jehovah's witness.
i was born in.
unsure,
The LORD is God. He created the heavens and the earth alone, by himself with no one else.
24"Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself;" Isaiah 44:24 KJV
"Which alone spreadeth out the heavens, and treadeth upon the waves of the sea." Job 9:8 KJV
Since He did it ALONE, then anyone that was involved in the creation of the heaven and the earth MUST be the LORD (Jehovah).
Hebrews 1:10 clearly shows that the heavens and the earth are the work of the hands of the the Lord Jesus Christ.
"And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands" Hebrews 1:10
Therefore The Lord Jesus is Jehovah.
i thought this would be a good time to pose some questions based on the series so far.. if creationism is true these should be easy.
answers that don't involve copy-paste would be really interesting to read.. ... .
1. since some proteins can be assembled in more ways than there are atoms in the universe why do the sequences of amino acids and bases vary between species in exactly the way evolution predicts?
Quote recovering
"Hooberus
You refuse to see that your experts conclusions are flawed . What if I showed you that even your so called experts admitted that they where incorrect with regards radiometric dating? Would that be enough to persuade you?"
You refuse to admit your previous clear misrepresentation here about the Siccar Point article so why should anyone trust what you have to say on any other subject?
i thought this would be a good time to pose some questions based on the series so far.. if creationism is true these should be easy.
answers that don't involve copy-paste would be really interesting to read.. ... .
1. since some proteins can be assembled in more ways than there are atoms in the universe why do the sequences of amino acids and bases vary between species in exactly the way evolution predicts?
Quote recovering
"Hooberus i was unclear indeed the author was
Tas Walker . However he also tries to discredit radiometric dating see here
http://thecreationclub.com/the-fatal-flaw-with-radioactive-dating-methods-tas-walker/
So now we have discredited both your experts"
Once again:
He never specifically mentioned radiocarbon dating in that Siccar Point article, yet you implied that he did, and made a big straw man argument about it.
That he elsewhere wrote specifically about radiocarbon dating does not excuse your false accusation about the Siccar Point article, nor does it "discredit" him.
Evolutionists just cant stand anything that questions their version of history. They always do anything they can to attack any author, article, or source that disagrees with them. Its just one source attack after another.
i thought this would be a good time to pose some questions based on the series so far.. if creationism is true these should be easy.
answers that don't involve copy-paste would be really interesting to read.. ... .
1. since some proteins can be assembled in more ways than there are atoms in the universe why do the sequences of amino acids and bases vary between species in exactly the way evolution predicts?
Quote WhatshallIcallmyself
"Interesting article Recovering. As usual talk origins has addressed most of this creationist nonsense."
What's interesting is how evolutionists howl to the moon about "peer review" and then turn around link to non peer reviewed sites like "talk origins", recommend non peer reviewed books by Dawkins etc.
i thought this would be a good time to pose some questions based on the series so far.. if creationism is true these should be easy.
answers that don't involve copy-paste would be really interesting to read.. ... .
1. since some proteins can be assembled in more ways than there are atoms in the universe why do the sequences of amino acids and bases vary between species in exactly the way evolution predicts?
Quote recovering
"What if I told you that your expert specifically attempts to refute all forms of radiometric dating. Would you be suprised ? I told Cofty I Would Be Laying A trap for you! . . . You See Baumgardner indeed attempts to refute all forms of radiometric Dating. . . " End Quote
The article about Siccar Point that we have have been discussing was not even written by John Baumgardner, but instead was written by Tas Walker. He never specifically mentioned radiocarbon dating in that article, yet you implied that he did, and made a big straw man argument about it.
i thought this would be a good time to pose some questions based on the series so far.. if creationism is true these should be easy.
answers that don't involve copy-paste would be really interesting to read.. ... .
1. since some proteins can be assembled in more ways than there are atoms in the universe why do the sequences of amino acids and bases vary between species in exactly the way evolution predicts?
Quote recovering
"Can't you read? What do you think radiometric dating is?"
The general term "radiometric dating" does not always (or even usually) refer specifically to the radiocarbon technique with its specifics. Once again Once again, nowhere in the article the author did not even specifcially mention radiocarbon dating, so all of your claims on that regarding him such as "He relates that since radio carbon dating was not used . . . " are a big straw man argument.
i thought this would be a good time to pose some questions based on the series so far.. if creationism is true these should be easy.
answers that don't involve copy-paste would be really interesting to read.. ... .
1. since some proteins can be assembled in more ways than there are atoms in the universe why do the sequences of amino acids and bases vary between species in exactly the way evolution predicts?
My quote feature is not woking so I will manually quote:
Quote recovering:
"Hooberus there is a logical error in the cited work you have provided. The author of the article says that the methodology used to date the site by scientists is flawed. He relates that since radio carbon dating was not used the accepted age of the site is incorrect. He has missed the mark , he obviously does not understand how radiocarbon dating works.
1 Radiocarbon dating only works on specimens 70000 years old and younger.
2 Radiocarbon dating needs the specimen to be a carbon based. biological specimen." End Quote
Once again, no where in the article the author did not even specifcially mention radiocarbon dating
i thought this would be a good time to pose some questions based on the series so far.. if creationism is true these should be easy.
answers that don't involve copy-paste would be really interesting to read.. ... .
1. since some proteins can be assembled in more ways than there are atoms in the universe why do the sequences of amino acids and bases vary between species in exactly the way evolution predicts?
Quote from recovering:
"Right here. Did you not read your own evidentiary citation?
Most people think the idea of billions of years comes from radiometric dating. But clearly that’s not true, since this dating method was not developed until the beginning of the 20th century, about 100 years after Hutton died. Hutton based his idea of an old earth on an assumption. It was not a discovery. He assumed that the same slow processes eroding the Scottish highlands in the present formed the ancient rocks by the North Sea in the past. So an old earth is the outworking of an unbiblical philosophy (cf. 2 Peter 3:3–7)."
There is nothing there (or in the rest of the article) that is specifically about the "radiocarbon" technique. So your accusation about radiocarbon specifics and the authors knowledge is bogus. Perhaps its you that needs to be a better reader.
