Mad Dawg

Joined

• started 43 topics
• posted 1,003 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by Mad Dawg

• 
  14

  Watchtower Bethel Application from 1982

  by Marvin Shilmer in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  watchtower bethel application from 1982 .

  questions asked tell their own story.

  today i posted onto my blog the first post-1980 update of the bethel application.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Mad Dawg

  It is interesting that they don't inquire about post public school education.
• 
  14

  who really controlls this country

  by jaguarbass in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  .

  check out this george carlin video.

  http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=935607276.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Mad Dawg

  Gary Neal said:

  I don't see how 'market forces' are going to work with the politician supporting big oil like they do.

  Actually, it is the big oil companies that are leding the way in commercially viable biofuels. Even as the environmetalists are aware that oil deposits won't last forever, so are the oil companies aware of this. Just as Kodak is making digital cameras and RJ Reynolds is selling elctric guitars, the oil companies are very aware that, if they have nothing to sell when the oil runs out, they are dead.
• 
  64

  Jesus' Physical Resurrection = Take the Ransom Back?

  by InterestedOne in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  in my "study," we have encountered the matter of whether or not jesus' physical body rose from the dead.

  i brought up a couple of scriptures that seem to indicate physical (john 2:18-22 and john 10:17,18).

  the jw's i am "studying" with explained how, although those verses may appear to indicate physical, jesus couldn't have meant that because if he physically rose from the dead, he would have taken back the ransom.. now that i know the wt reasoning on this, can someone point me to another source, link, book, article, etc.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Mad Dawg

  If He materialized several bodies, wouldn't He have died several times when He disposed of them?
• 
  282

  Non-evidence reasons why people embrace Evolution.

  by hooberus in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  evolutionists always claim that the reason why they believe in evolution and reject creation is due to "evidence".

  they frequently use the opposite term "no evidence" in relation to any type of intelligent design, or creation, (and especially to genesis creation and flood history !).

  their advocated beliefs always tend to include whatever is necessary to believe in to intellectually "explain" the existence of the universe, world, and its creatures without needing god).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Mad Dawg

  Are you saying that you had Shannon in mind when you said that evolution produces information?
• 
  282

  Non-evidence reasons why people embrace Evolution.

  by hooberus in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  evolutionists always claim that the reason why they believe in evolution and reject creation is due to "evidence".

  they frequently use the opposite term "no evidence" in relation to any type of intelligent design, or creation, (and especially to genesis creation and flood history !).

  their advocated beliefs always tend to include whatever is necessary to believe in to intellectually "explain" the existence of the universe, world, and its creatures without needing god).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Mad Dawg

  In other words you can't do it.

  1) I know full well that if you could post where you clearly stated your definition of "information", you would have done it post-haste just to shove it in my face. Even at this time, you still have not clarified it. Is it Kolmogorov? Shannon? Entropy? What? Which one am I to pick? Why do I bear the burden of trying to figure out what you mean if you are too lazy, arrogant, whatever to simply state it?

  2) If you can't tell that I was not defining evolution, you have no business arguing in English.

  Maybe, someday, Dogbert will finally excorcise the demons of stupidity from your posts. It is notable that Dogbert only shows up to excorcise stupidity from your posts - and no one else's.
• 
  282

  Non-evidence reasons why people embrace Evolution.

  by hooberus in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  evolutionists always claim that the reason why they believe in evolution and reject creation is due to "evidence".

  they frequently use the opposite term "no evidence" in relation to any type of intelligent design, or creation, (and especially to genesis creation and flood history !).

  their advocated beliefs always tend to include whatever is necessary to believe in to intellectually "explain" the existence of the universe, world, and its creatures without needing god).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Mad Dawg

  Please copy-and-paste and provide the post number it was taken from for:

  1) Where you have clearly stated which definition of information you were using in this statement "and evolution CAN create information, it is observed in the laboratory" in post #3245.

  2) Where I said "Evolution is rocks turning into man". I am looking for the verbatim quote as you have used quotation marks.

  If you can find these quotes, I will post an honest heart-felt apology in regard to the quote you find. Otherwise, I will stand firm that my misunderstandings are due to your lack of clarity.
• 
  282

  Non-evidence reasons why people embrace Evolution.

  by hooberus in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  evolutionists always claim that the reason why they believe in evolution and reject creation is due to "evidence".

  they frequently use the opposite term "no evidence" in relation to any type of intelligent design, or creation, (and especially to genesis creation and flood history !).

  their advocated beliefs always tend to include whatever is necessary to believe in to intellectually "explain" the existence of the universe, world, and its creatures without needing god).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Mad Dawg

  I think you have palmed yourself in the face too hard. It is showing its effects.

  I didn't choose either one. I have asked you to define which one you meant. At this point, you STILL haven't defined it clearly.

  In my country, it is extremely rude to correct a native English speaker if you are a non-native English speaker. I offered the "nuance of the English language" as another effort to allow you to save face. You would rather drown than grab a life preserver.

  Any misunderstandings that I have is for no other reason than that you have not clarified your statements. I told you way back that this would be over if you simply clarified what you meant. I am not asking you to prove anything. Just clarify what you meant in that post. What is so hard about that? How do you expect to prove anything when you are not clear?

  Stalking you? Get real, this is the only thread that I have taken up with you.

  Are you God now and can read my thoughts? My reasons are as stated for not taking your stupid challenge.

  As for my motivations, you didn't (and still haven't) defined a particular word despite your penchant for demanding such of others. You have preferred to proclaim that your post was perfectly clear when it wasn't. Your just pissed that I called you on it.

  My claim is as solid as Gibralter: you won't even admit to a minor error. You and I agree to your last bullit point. My statement is that you did it anyway. Are you the Almighty Bohm that we mere mortals cannot contradict you? If you say that the sun rises in the west, then it is so because the Almighty said so? Your inability to fess up has been fascinating. Your are such an arrogant boor that you would dare question my understanding of English. I can just imagine your reaction if I were to question your comprehension of your native tongue.
• 
  282

  Non-evidence reasons why people embrace Evolution.

  by hooberus in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  evolutionists always claim that the reason why they believe in evolution and reject creation is due to "evidence".

  they frequently use the opposite term "no evidence" in relation to any type of intelligent design, or creation, (and especially to genesis creation and flood history !).

  their advocated beliefs always tend to include whatever is necessary to believe in to intellectually "explain" the existence of the universe, world, and its creatures without needing god).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Mad Dawg

  Darwin was a Christian? Evolution was common in his time. His Grandfather wrote a book on it, Zoonomia.

  How do you account for evolutionists that become creationists? I suspect that they examined the evidence and found the evolutionary conclusions less than compelling.
• 
  282

  Non-evidence reasons why people embrace Evolution.

  by hooberus in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  evolutionists always claim that the reason why they believe in evolution and reject creation is due to "evidence".

  they frequently use the opposite term "no evidence" in relation to any type of intelligent design, or creation, (and especially to genesis creation and flood history !).

  their advocated beliefs always tend to include whatever is necessary to believe in to intellectually "explain" the existence of the universe, world, and its creatures without needing god).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Mad Dawg

  The video shows a bunch of observations. The conclusions one draws depends on the axioms that they start with.
• 
  39

  Should America Apologize For Hiroshima?

  by Bangalore in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  should america apologize for hiroshima?.

  http://blogcritics.org/politics/article/apologize-for-hiroshima/.

  bangalore.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Mad Dawg

  Prodigal, your sources don't address the atrocities that Japan committed in the countries it occupied. Further, one suggests that China benefitted from the occupation.