sizemik

Joined

• started 145 topics
• posted 5,292 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by sizemik

• 
  170

  Simple answer, please! Scientifically explain the origin of life coming from nothing!

  by Silent_Scream in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  scientific method asserts nothing living can come from something non-living.

  science is observable, science is reproducible.

  a living thing coming from non-living matter has never been observed nor reproduced.. therefore, it takes faith in an unknown process to believe that that's exactly what happened in the beginning, with no evidence!.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  sizemik

  Still on about what athesits "believe"

  You still don't get it.
• 
  170

  Simple answer, please! Scientifically explain the origin of life coming from nothing!

  by Silent_Scream in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  scientific method asserts nothing living can come from something non-living.

  science is observable, science is reproducible.

  a living thing coming from non-living matter has never been observed nor reproduced.. therefore, it takes faith in an unknown process to believe that that's exactly what happened in the beginning, with no evidence!.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  sizemik

  Believers are painted as ignorant. If that's the case, so are atheists. There's no proof to substantiate the claims life came from non-life.

  Who ever said atheists claim life came from non-life?

  Your statements are very naieve.
• 
  170

  Simple answer, please! Scientifically explain the origin of life coming from nothing!

  by Silent_Scream in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  scientific method asserts nothing living can come from something non-living.

  science is observable, science is reproducible.

  a living thing coming from non-living matter has never been observed nor reproduced.. therefore, it takes faith in an unknown process to believe that that's exactly what happened in the beginning, with no evidence!.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  sizemik

  So now, atheists, the stage is yours. Where's the evidence in this critical part of your beliefs?

  False premise . . . atheism is not a belief. Some will just never get thier head around that it seems.

  READ IT AGAIN (yes, I'm shouting) . . . Atheism is not an "alternative set of beliefs" . . . why is that so difficult?

  I want/need proof!

  If you want proof . . . why don't you get cracking and get looking for yourself from a neutral and honest standpoint? A challenge on a forum is either lazy or has an agenda . . . take your pick. Pitching your beliefs against what others think will only get you so far. At some stage you need to take responsibility for what your own mind decides, and get used to the fact that very few people will give a shit as to what that actually is.

  If you're simply seeking to validate your own belief . . . you won't get any help from atheists. You will accomplish that all by yourself.
• 
  239

  The Great Debate: "Has Science Refuted Religion?

  by dark angle in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  just want to share this amazing debate!

  caltech cosmologist and physicist sean carroll teams up with skeptic magazine publisher and science historian michael shermer in this epic debate with noted conservative author and king's college president dinesh d'souza and mit physicist ian hutchinson as they go head-to-head over one of the most controversial issues of our age.

  as science pushes deeper into territory once the province of religion, with questions such as why there is something rather than nothing?, where did the universe come from?, how did life arise?, what was the origin of morality?, and others, inevitable conflicts arise over the best approach to answer them.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  sizemik

  What we curently recognise as "non-living" matter shows many of the traits we use to define life. For example, crystals form in favorable conditions. Simple molecules replicating themselves repeatedly in an effort to dominate their micro-environment. The elements that constitute the physical world are not dead . . . they are dynamic and ever-changing, seeking to add complexity through chemical reactions which even compete with one another. Sounds a lot like "life" I guess.

  Could it be that crossing over from "non-living" to "living" is not the miraculous threshold we believe it to be . . . that it is simply a level of complexity and requires no such thing as "the spark of life." If the energy that gives both living and non-living matter it's physical presence is the same . . . then the entire universe is alive. The distinction is merely a human perception . . . an illusion.
• 
  18

  Peter kicking the apostates DOWN!

  by nananana in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  certainly if, after having escaped from the defilements of the world by an accurate knowledge of the lord and savior jesus christ, they get involved again with these very things and are overcome, the final conditions have become worse for them than the first.. 21 for it would have been better for them not to have accurately known the path of righteousness than after knowing it accurately to turn away from the holy commandment delivered to them.

  22 the saying of the true proverb has happened to them: the dog has returned to its own vomit, and the sow that was bathed to rolling in the mire.

  2 peter 2:20-23. the saddest thing about apostates is that they allowed the cunning deception of false reasoning to take root in their heart thus allowing room for satanic influence and mental disease.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  sizemik

  Perhaps you need to give heed to your own textbook for a change . . . instead of making hateful accusations.

  When he was being reviled, he did not go reviling in return. When he was suffering, he did not go threatening, but kept on committing himself to the one who judges righteously.

  Really . . . you are an exceedingly bad advertisement for your faith.
• 
  8

  Unfortunately...they are giving a MUCH better witness worldwide than we thought...as my old bible study is telling me

  by oompa in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  because i remember how freaked out some would get if something bad happend and "oh my, that is such a bad witness!

  i hope that does not make the papers"...oh i heard that one a lot...same if a "bad witness" was seen on tv or your name is in the paper for a dwi, urinating in public, indecent exposure, (not my bio) but we/they always hated the masses seeing anything negative right?!?!?!?.

  and funny how important that all the world know the truth right???

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  sizemik

  Great story oompa . . . and a big pat on the back to the hundreds who have posted vids . . . each and every one.

  The chickens are coming home.
• 
  239

  The Great Debate: "Has Science Refuted Religion?

  by dark angle in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  just want to share this amazing debate!

  caltech cosmologist and physicist sean carroll teams up with skeptic magazine publisher and science historian michael shermer in this epic debate with noted conservative author and king's college president dinesh d'souza and mit physicist ian hutchinson as they go head-to-head over one of the most controversial issues of our age.

  as science pushes deeper into territory once the province of religion, with questions such as why there is something rather than nothing?, where did the universe come from?, how did life arise?, what was the origin of morality?, and others, inevitable conflicts arise over the best approach to answer them.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  sizemik

  Size, Old Generation makes some very good observations about the JW approach and when I brought up the JW approach being used in these debates, it is what I was talking about. He was more wordy and eloquent than me, but said what I mean. It's not a barb. It's not an insult. It's a true thing that is happening by some on the atheist threads.

  FHN . . . I've read Old*guy's comments, but thanks . . . I referred to one of his posts in my comment. It's been said 100 times before.

  I'll have to hunt back and find my definition of the WT approach. It is definitely a problem on this forum: that we can sink back into the witness habit of being so sure we are right and feeling like we have to spread the word.

  Yeah well . . . it's an ex-JW forum, I wouldn't bother with a campaign to eradicate it. It won't happen.

  Here's the problem FHN . . . who's opinion of just who has this problem is valid? Are they qualified as an authority on the matter? Is it a single comment that reveals this "JWishness" in them? . . . or is it continuous. Is it really an exclusive "JW" thing or something related to personality? . . . if so to what extent? How long has the individual been out?

  Do they know the answer to all these questions? . . . and are well-informed on the in's and out's of human psychology and behaviour?

  I don't believe anyone can make the claim with enough authority. Even if there is some validity (who knows how much) to attaching such a label . . . it is still an attack on the messenger not the message (and somewhat JW-like in itself) . . . and has no more valid place in a forum debate than name-calling and insults.

  It's an attempt to invalidate a person . . . not a reasoned reply to argument . . . same as calling them an idiot.
• 
  30

  Any blues fans out there?

  by botchtowersociety in

  1. social
  2. entertainment

  please educate me.

  i am looking for good music.

  .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  sizemik

  If you like the harp . . .

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jBeuco0PgJs

  To borrow an anonymous quote . . .

  You start by having the woman you love rip your heart out of your chest, stomp on it and leave it layin' in the cold november mud while she packs up her things and never comes back. Then buy a a good blues harp ( key; if C bends easily) then play to forget and play for better times to come. After all that... repeat process as necessary to archive a broken soul sound via vibrating metal reeds. There really is no better teacher than time.
• 
  30

  Any blues fans out there?

  by botchtowersociety in

  1. social
  2. entertainment

  please educate me.

  i am looking for good music.

  .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  sizemik

  OK it's country blues . . . a bit light and fluffy for some.

  But hell . . . this guy could play guitar . . .

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tcy9YDBjME4
• 
  239

  The Great Debate: "Has Science Refuted Religion?

  by dark angle in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  just want to share this amazing debate!

  caltech cosmologist and physicist sean carroll teams up with skeptic magazine publisher and science historian michael shermer in this epic debate with noted conservative author and king's college president dinesh d'souza and mit physicist ian hutchinson as they go head-to-head over one of the most controversial issues of our age.

  as science pushes deeper into territory once the province of religion, with questions such as why there is something rather than nothing?, where did the universe come from?, how did life arise?, what was the origin of morality?, and others, inevitable conflicts arise over the best approach to answer them.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  sizemik

  "Hey, Heather, you're acting like a JW there."

  Nobody ever frames the accusation all friendly like that . . . it's usually, if not always, delivered as a barb fired to supposedly strengthen a point of view . . . go and re-read Oldsomethings post where he ends up quacking like a duck . . . sorry, but that's classic P/A behaviour.

  The JW comparison is not as valid as some seem to think. Vehemence in discussion or debate is not a JW thing . . . it's human-wide. The comparison is 99% illusory.

  I would suggest PA behaviour is a far greater legacy to JW think. P/A's speak using suggestive generalisations, innuendo, snide analogies etc., always leaving wriggle-room for deniability. It's much more common than a strong opinion, and seldom recognised by the user.