Posts by Terra Incognita

this seems to be a favorite topic to bring up to any witnesses who post on any website where there are any opposers, either here or topix or anywhere.. so, here is the one and only place i will be discussing it.

who can prove that witnesses are specifically told not to post on websites about them?.

Terra Incognita

This guy is made of it (not to be confused with "full of it"). Don't even waste words on DroopLimp.

151

Introducing Myself

by StandFirm in

jw
friends

hello to jwn!

this is standfirm.

i mainly post on the topix jehovah's witness forum, but i decided to give it a try over here also.

Terra Incognita

Standfirm; I noticed that you did not respond to a pointed rebuttal made by Beenthere26yr (on his post #9 pg. 4). You answered almost everyone's posts between your post #7 (on page 4) and the one immediately following on your post #9 (page 5). You even answered Leapofthefrog’s similar but not explicitly worded post.

Beenthere26yr made reference to a Watchtower issue that is in blatant and irrefutable, contradiction to your claims about its tolerance on visiting Apostate websites.

I quote a succession of posts below in chronological order to demonstrate your disingenuous and dishonest rationalizations.

StandFirm:

"I don't believe that the organization states that sites like this must be avoided when one already is familiar with the ideas presented. And no, I do not count time here. This is more of a hobby."

"I see this to mean that those who are exposed to apostate arguments who do honest research on them will see them to be false."

Beenthere26yr:

From July 15, 2011 Watchtower, page 11 “What must we do to avoid false teachers? We do not speak to them or invite them into our houses. We also do not read their books, watch them on television, read what they write on the Internet, or add our own comments about what they write on the Internet.

StandFirm quoting Leapofthefrog:

“Andre is shown as a bad example not to be followed. But if one was already exposed to apostate ideas, then it shows that from there that honest research is what would to dispel them. At least, that is how the Society must feel. I agree.”

Bottom line StandFirm, I challenge you to stand firm to that explicit statement made in the July 15, 2011 Watchtower. Don't dodge the issue anymore or make silly statements like "that is how the Society must (MUST?!?!?!) feel." The Watchtower explicitly says "we" without making a distinction between apostate savvy "we" and weak minded "we".

You know that Andre was used as an example for EVERY SINGLE WITNESS TO FOLLOW! NO EXCEPTIONS, YOU INCLUDED!

41

can somebody shed some light on me?

by psychiatric in

jw
friends

ill introduce myself.

my name is darren, im 23 and live in england.. im having some problems with the "truth".. to start it off and to keep it as minimal as possible because i dont want to bore your minds, i was raised with my whole family as a roman catholic.. after moving around the world, even as far as new zealand, i got myself in a terrible way in guernsey channel islands.

i met some old friends of mine who were into all sorts related to the "crime scene" and i got myself involved with drugs and the like.. i began a spiralling into depression and cutting my arms to feel alive.

Terra Incognita

Darren:

"now i feel extremely lost in my mind in this world, because now every time someone says soemthing i have it in my mind its the devil saying these bad things etc, but its not! its my FRIEND! How can it be the devil! i dont know whats happened to my mind. i fdeel as if i have been indoctrined in some way."

Hi Darren and welcome.

Let me first state that there are a lot of "testimonial" cases throughout "Christendom" as to healing from previous problems; even severe ones worse than yours. Pentecostals and Baptists are prime examples.

The reason why most of those people heal has nothing to do with the religion being an instrument of God. There are two reasons, sometimes interrelated for such healing.

First, because you imagine that a divine power, greater than you, is going to help you do what you previously could not do on your own; you subconsciously make a triple effort to help yourself. Consider such religious experiences a super placebo effect that actually works (sometimes) in jump starting a genuine change.

Second, having a personal support group helps you climb out of his rut. Even if they are not directly involved in your life but encouraging you; you have something to look forward to.

Yes, God is held out in from of you as the healer of all things. However, keep in mind that a Pentecostal who sees Jehovah's Witnesses as misled by the Devil and a Jehovah's Witness who feels the same about that Pentecostal are both going to deny that God, 'Truth' or whatever, helped that Devil misled soul to any form of healing. Both the 'born again' and the JW will point at each other and blame demonic influences for their (identical) 'healings'.

91

GLOBAL FLOOD . . . Did it Really Happen?

by sizemik in

this question became an off-topic sidetrack in another thread.

i thought it might be worth some debate so posted here .

the debate is basically between mainstream geological understanding of the earth's history and "young earth creationism" in particular with how the evidence relates to the occurrence of a global flood in the recent past.. a couple of points from the yec website www.icr.org are raised as examples in order to kick things off .

Terra Incognita

Larsinger:

"One of the things that that convinces me there was a global flood is indirect evidence of the water canopy. For instance, under all the ice on Antartica is tropical plant life. The geologists want to tell us that Antartica was thus closer to the equator at one time and then drifted to the South Pole. That's one theory."

Before responding to your post, Larsinger, I want to thank you for posing an argument that is worthy of debate.

My knowledge about past Antarctic life forms in very spotty, at best, but to my recollection there were pine trees growing at the periphery of a much reduced ice cap at one point in its geological past. It was mostly ice free during a period of time during the reign of the dinosaurs but, according to plant fossils, it definitely was not tropical. In fact it would have had quite a bit of snow during the winter.

Antarctica doesn't even have to be close to the equator to have warmer than present weather. Changes in Ocean circulation, Carbon Dioxide levels, etc., can have major impacts on its local weather. Antarctica, by the way has been in its present position for a long period of time, even while the other continents drifted a lot.

That it may have had semi tropical plants at some point is not proof of a water canopy hypothesis. Before giving a particular explanation as the only one that can account for a particular situation, you have to exhaust the alternative explanations.

As far as Continental Drift is concerned, it is a proven theory. Furthermore, we can accurately figure out where those continents have been at any given time.

"But another is consistent with the water canopy which was over the earth and which made the entire earth a tropical environment, very much like a green house. When this was removed, then the poles froze."

Not when you understand the dynamics of water flow and heat retention.

Assuming, and that's a big assumption, that the air temperature would lower drastically, it would not be able to freeze the waters at the poles. The waters that would fall on the poles would quickly seek the lowest level by falling into the ocean. There cannot be any flash freezing; in fact it would take weeks probably months for such warm water to freeze. By then that water would have fallen into the oceans with the currently iced covered polar land masses (Antarctica and Greenland) left bare.

The reason for that is takes a much longer time for water to give up its heat energy than air. Water is a thousand times denser than air. That means that while air can cool off quickly, water will still be releasing its heat slowly. It would stay unfrozen for a period of time before the air above it, at lower than freezing temperatures, has the ability to freeze even the top 1 foot.

How then can you explain the fact that the ice in Antarctica and Greenland is up to TWO MILES THICK! It takes a while for the warmest waters in the Arctic Ocean to refreeze to just as a mere crust of ice-1, 2, 3 then a few feet thicker. Yet Young Earth Creationists want to believe; against the laws of physics that such water, two miles thick, will instantly be flash frozen.

Let me repeat the main points in brief so that one can realize what the "flash Freeze" explanation is up against:

Extremely long times for water to give up its heat compared to air at any given temperature.
Temperatures of, to give a "Creationist" inspired guess, 80 degrees Fahrenheit.
The fact that ocean water just a few degrees above freezing (30 o -35 o F) takes weeks to months for just a crust of ice to initially and then get deeper, and slowly at that.
The fact that water will simply equalize its level long before any frigid air temperature (even if it were sub zero) would have a chance to freeze a miniscule amount of it let alone the entire thickness.

91

GLOBAL FLOOD . . . Did it Really Happen?

by sizemik in

this question became an off-topic sidetrack in another thread.

i thought it might be worth some debate so posted here .

the debate is basically between mainstream geological understanding of the earth's history and "young earth creationism" in particular with how the evidence relates to the occurrence of a global flood in the recent past.. a couple of points from the yec website www.icr.org are raised as examples in order to kick things off .

Terra Incognita

Get this book. It's well worth the price.

.

It will give a lot of details on that and all other Creationist/I.D. issues.

http://www.amazon.com/Science-Earth-History-Evolution-Controversy/dp/1573927171/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1304740817&sr=8-1#_

91

GLOBAL FLOOD . . . Did it Really Happen?

by sizemik in

this question became an off-topic sidetrack in another thread.

i thought it might be worth some debate so posted here .

the debate is basically between mainstream geological understanding of the earth's history and "young earth creationism" in particular with how the evidence relates to the occurrence of a global flood in the recent past.. a couple of points from the yec website www.icr.org are raised as examples in order to kick things off .

Terra Incognita

GLOBAL FLOOD . . . Did it Really Happen?

Nope.

Further news at eleven.

26

Anyone else believe in the Ancient Astronaut theory?

by sinis in

jw
friends

interesting link:.

.

http://www.crystalinks.com/ancientastronauts.html.

Terra Incognita

JonathanH:

"It would be a ridiculous one in a million shot that aliens actually cruised around in crafts that look exactly like the things made up by sensationalistic tabloids misquoting some guy, and the rickety low budget crafts from 50s B movies."

I'm not ready to give a list of Erich von Daniken absurdities but I will make a passing comment at the "flying saucer motif".

Why is it that some of them have windows? Will that really help the aliens to see anything when they're buzzing around at the speed of light? If our sci-fi fiction have spacecraft with "sensors" to see what's out there, then why can't you just have a bunch of miniature pea sized cameras, imbedded in the 'skin' of the craft, that can 'see' what's out there in the whole spectrum? The entire inner wall of the spaceship can be a flat screen monitor that can see everything; all around you. From Gamma Rays to Infrared and everything in between, such as the visible spectrum; which humans can see.

Why do they even need to enter the atmosphere in order to observe anything on Earth, especially nowadays when we can see them (by occasional 'accident'). Aren't they supposed to be hiding from us so that they don't, in their concern for our dainty nature, find out about their existence before we're mature enough to swallow it? Can't they see enough with their super duper, long range, ultra high resolution peepers?

Also, Ufologists like their saucers to crash every once in a while so that they can leave a mess for GOVERNMENT to conspiratorially hide. Yet, why can't these mega advanced aliens have a cleanup crew to remove the debris pronto? That way, we primitive barbarians don't get a hold of their super whammy technology and then write an unending stream of books about Roswell?

And by the way, why do flying saucers need runways in order to land? Runways are for fixed wing aircraft.

Inquiring minds want to know.

26

Anyone else believe in the Ancient Astronaut theory?

by sinis in

jw
friends

interesting link:.

.

http://www.crystalinks.com/ancientastronauts.html.

Terra Incognita

Sinis:"I know Phd's (science field) that believe in the A.A.T."

Sinis; that is an argument of authority. There are plenty of scientists who believe in creationism even though they know absolutely nothing about evolution. Once a scientist is completely outside of his field he is as ignorant as John Doe with an IQ of 90 on any other particular subject.

Those PhD's you know are absolutely no different. Example; when scientists tried to investigate Psychics to determine if they actually had "psychic powers" they failed miserably. They were easily fooled by the psychics. Until Magicians came along and exposed them. That's all that Psychics were. Magicians who pretended that their magic was real. It took one to one to know one.

As for exposing the Von Daniken illusion all it took was the most basic knowledge in a wide variety of fields and the whole thing fell apart and in the most dramatic manner. That is how pathetic the so-called evidence was.

I don't have time to get into actual details but I suggest you do get a copy of Crash go the Chariots. It's a very easy read.