Posts by Psychotic Parrot

51

Putting the 'probability argument' against abiogenesis in the grave once and for all

by bohm in

jw
friends

amongst the many arguments for and against creation the probability arguments stands out.

the improbability of generating the necessary proteins by chanceor the genetic information to produce themto balloon beyond comprehension.

... the odds of getting even one functional protein of modest length (150 amino acids) by chance from a prebioitc soup is no better than 1 chance in 10164. meyer continues, another way to say that is the probability of finding a functional protein by chance alone is a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion times smaller than the odds of finding a single specific particle among all the particles in the universe.. the evidence for the probability of origin of life arising from darwins warm little pond seems to have vanished beyond the realm of any possibilityregardless of any early earth scenario.. i really, really want to put it in the grave because i think its an embaressment to the theists and thinking humans in general; its right up there with 'noahs ark has been found' and 'humans have less chromosomes than monkeys', but for some reason people dont see through it.

Psychotic Parrot

Explain then, how inanimate elements became a thinking being.

You & i were both inanimate elements at one time, just a few short years ago in fact. But then we were eaten by our parents, & the chemicals that we were, were absorbed & fashioned into sex cells. One for daddy & one for mummy. Through an act of sin, these 2 cells met, combined, & divided. Over a period of time, approximately 6-9 months, these non-sentient cells divided so much that they eventually formed a thinking being. Me in my case, & you in your case.

Inanimate elements (& compounds) become thinking beings all the time, & it only takes a few short months. Now imagine that process happening on a generational level, over a period of billions of years, with competition as a driving force, & you have your answer

34

How is a Jehovah'sWitness suppossed to know they are annointed?

by brainwashed-from-birth in

jw
friends

are there any tests/interviews they have to go thru to prove it?.

.

Psychotic Parrot

They have to sleep with the circuit overseer.

26

Disfellowshipping

by XPeterX in

any notable/weird cases of disfellowshipping to mention?ok let me start first:two jw couples in my are had been doing orgies and they got kicked out.this happened 2 years ago..

Psychotic Parrot

Pics or it didn't happen.

11

Which Jerusalem was Luke referring to

by wannabe in

{matthew 24:9,22} revelation 12:17} {hebrews 11:32-40}.

they have been trampled on now for almost six thousand years.

{luke 4:5-8} {revelation 13:1}.

Psychotic Parrot

Yes, i do.

11

Which Jerusalem was Luke referring to

by wannabe in

{matthew 24:9,22} revelation 12:17} {hebrews 11:32-40}.

they have been trampled on now for almost six thousand years.

{luke 4:5-8} {revelation 13:1}.

Psychotic Parrot

52

Doesn't an 'allegorical' Garden of Eden nullify the need for a Ransom?

by AK - Jeff in

i have noted in the past few months or years that christians, when faced the nearly insurmountable evidence that the garden of eden events are improbable if not impossible [i refer to fossil evidence that supports hominid existence on this planet perhaps millions of years ago, as example] to overcome, that the 'fall back' position is often that the garden of eden account is just allegory, not literal.. but it occurs to me that if it is just allegorical, then there is no specific event to mark the 'fall of man' and 'original sin'.

without that, what purpose is served with the idea of a 'ransom' in which 'the last adam' overcomes the sin of adam in the garden.

why would nt writers refer to the events as if literal if they are just allegory?

Psychotic Parrot

No, i was right the first time, you're just a wind up. A troll. Piss off.

52

Doesn't an 'allegorical' Garden of Eden nullify the need for a Ransom?

by AK - Jeff in

i have noted in the past few months or years that christians, when faced the nearly insurmountable evidence that the garden of eden events are improbable if not impossible [i refer to fossil evidence that supports hominid existence on this planet perhaps millions of years ago, as example] to overcome, that the 'fall back' position is often that the garden of eden account is just allegory, not literal.. but it occurs to me that if it is just allegorical, then there is no specific event to mark the 'fall of man' and 'original sin'.

without that, what purpose is served with the idea of a 'ransom' in which 'the last adam' overcomes the sin of adam in the garden.

why would nt writers refer to the events as if literal if they are just allegory?

Psychotic Parrot

Yes you have. And as a christian, you're obviously not going to be impressed by them. I'm bright enough to spot that. Are you bright enough to sense how much of a bigoted idiot i think you are? If you're not, you could always try praying for guidence on the matter.

Why is it that people have the ability to work out that the watchtower is bullshit, but lack the honesty & integrity to use the reasoning that brought them to that conclusion to examine the reliability of the bible as well. It baffles me.

52

Doesn't an 'allegorical' Garden of Eden nullify the need for a Ransom?

by AK - Jeff in

i have noted in the past few months or years that christians, when faced the nearly insurmountable evidence that the garden of eden events are improbable if not impossible [i refer to fossil evidence that supports hominid existence on this planet perhaps millions of years ago, as example] to overcome, that the 'fall back' position is often that the garden of eden account is just allegory, not literal.. but it occurs to me that if it is just allegorical, then there is no specific event to mark the 'fall of man' and 'original sin'.

without that, what purpose is served with the idea of a 'ransom' in which 'the last adam' overcomes the sin of adam in the garden.

why would nt writers refer to the events as if literal if they are just allegory?

Psychotic Parrot

I thought you were a troll because i got the feeling you weren't genuine, but were rather just being annoying for the sake of it, but now i can see you're the real deal, so all i can say is this...

You pray for me, & i'll think for you.

34

Something i've never understood, perhaps you could answer for me?

by highdose in

jw
friends

i have never understood how adults that have had a life in the normal world could be brainwashed into this cult?

ok i know it dosn't happen very often, about 1 in every 10 years in my experiance.

but it dos happen all the same?.

Psychotic Parrot

The born in's i can understand, if youv'e been brainwashed since birth then you don't stand much of a chance.

Really? Well i was born in & i got out just fine, & i'm only 22.

52

Doesn't an 'allegorical' Garden of Eden nullify the need for a Ransom?

by AK - Jeff in

i have noted in the past few months or years that christians, when faced the nearly insurmountable evidence that the garden of eden events are improbable if not impossible [i refer to fossil evidence that supports hominid existence on this planet perhaps millions of years ago, as example] to overcome, that the 'fall back' position is often that the garden of eden account is just allegory, not literal.. but it occurs to me that if it is just allegorical, then there is no specific event to mark the 'fall of man' and 'original sin'.

without that, what purpose is served with the idea of a 'ransom' in which 'the last adam' overcomes the sin of adam in the garden.

why would nt writers refer to the events as if literal if they are just allegory?

Psychotic Parrot

Deputy Dog is a troll. Ban him.

Actually no, excommunicate him, let's do it his way.