although i have serious reservations regarding the views on blood that jw's have, i would like to clarify something with a person who keeps ignorantly insisting that the blood between a mother and fetus are naturally transfused within the womb.
can someone help me to disprove that?
any references from the wt library would be best.. thanks
Although I have serious reservations regarding the views on blood that Jw's have, I would like to clarify something with a person who keeps ignorantly insisting that the blood between a mother and fetus are naturally transfused within the womb. Can someone help me to disprove that? Any references from the Wt library would be best.
Thanks
if i wanted to get the phone # of a presiding overseer in another cong., what would i do?
would bethel provide it?
If I wanted to get the phone # of a presiding overseer in another cong., what would I do? Would bethel provide it?
because i listened to the dumb elders who suggested i stay away from college, now i'm broke and unhappy.
i need money and direction.. can anyone suggest a few short courses i can take so as to find a job easy and quick?
it could be anything, i'm lost, i'm in dire need for something, anything.
Because I listened to the dumb elders who suggested I stay away from college, now I'm broke and unhappy. I need money and direction.
Can anyone suggest a few short courses I can take so as to find a job easy and quick? It could be anything, I'm lost, I'm in dire need for something, anything. A vocational school, trade course, whatever, something short and quick and will most likely get me a job in no time. I can go to school for up to 6 months I suppose, but anything past that will suck me dry.
PLEASE HELP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I like computers, working with my hands, construction, Anything!!!!
for any who were former elders: suppose a sister was interested in a brother and she called the elders in his cong.
however, the brother was reproved.
if the sister knew about the reproof already, would you as an elder proceed to tell the sister about the details of the reproof?
For any who were former elders: Suppose a sister was interested in a brother and she called the elders in his cong. However, the brother was reproved. If the sister knew about the reproof already, would you as an elder proceed to tell the sister about the details of the reproof? Or just the overall picture? What would you do? Thanks for any help.
i know a couple of people who were molested, and it's very painful indeed.
i'm looking for websites that explain the effects of various general types of molestation, whether it be rape, pressure, or whatever.
how can one learn about the effects and be helped to cope?
I know a couple of people who were molested, and it's very painful indeed. I'm looking for websites that explain the effects of various general types of molestation, whether it be rape, pressure, or whatever. How can one learn about the effects and be helped to cope?
Thanks for any help.
behe on the flagellum, an irreducibly complex biological system that baffles scientists:.
http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_brresp.htm.
what has biochemistry found that must be explained?
What you fail to realize is that I offer no alternate hypothesis, I'm simply exposing the serious flaws in darwinistic theory.
One alternate hypothesis, however, is panspermia, but there are many more. I do not rigidly adhere to any one belief system as you guys do. I consider many different possibilities, unlike the narrow-minded priests of darwinism.
behe on the flagellum, an irreducibly complex biological system that baffles scientists:.
http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_brresp.htm.
what has biochemistry found that must be explained?
Behe on the flagellum, an irreducibly complex biological system that baffles scientists:
http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_brresp.htm
What has biochemistry found that must be explained? Machines--literally, machines made of molecules. Let's look at just one example. The flagellum is an outboard motor that many bacteria use to swim. It consists of a rotary propeller, motor, and stationary framework. Yet this short description can't do justice to the machine's full complexity. Writing of the flagellum in Cell, Lucy Shapiro of Stanford University marvels, "To carry out the feat of coordinating the ordered expression of about 50 genes, delivering the protein products of these genes to the construction site, and moving the correct parts to the upper floors while adhering to the design specification with a high degree of accuracy, the cell requires impressive organizational skills." Without any one of a number of parts, the flagellum does not merely work less efficiently; it does not work at all. Like a mousetrap it is irreducibly complex and therefore cannot have arisen gradually.
The rotary nature of the flagellum has been recognized for about 25 years. During that time not a single paper has been published in the biochemical literature even attempting to show how such a machine might have developed by natural selection. Darwin's theory is completely barren when it comes to explaining the origin of the flagellum or any other complex biochemical system.
The sterility of Darwinism indicates that it is the wrong framework for understanding the basis of life. As I argue in my book, an alternative hypothesis is both natural and obvious: systems such as the flagellum were intentionally designed by an intelligent agent. Just as in the everyday world we immediately conclude design when we see a complex, interactive system such as a mousetrap, there is no reason to withhold the same conclusion from interactive molecular systems. This conclusion may have theological implications that make some people uncomfortable; nonetheless it is the job of science to follow the data wherever they lead, no matter how disturbing.
i wish that you evolutionists would stop using language like.
"nature is more resourceful than you are".
nature (according to you) is not trying to accomplish anything and we humans are just an accident.. to me this seems improbable, and irreducible complexity just makes it more improbable.
Simply put: I'm troubled by the patent absurdity of Darwinian evolution. My attacks on Darwinism are not motivated in the least by any desire to defend any superstitious story of our origins. I believe that it will soon be possible to demonstrate mathematically that Darwinian evolution is impossible.
I do not object to your skepticism that such a proof will be produced. But I find obnoxious your closed minded attitude that such a project is absurd on some arbitrary a priori principles you are pleased to hold. Frankly, I can discern little difference in your attitudes towards Dembski and the Church's attitudes towards Galileo.
I also have a hard time understanding why you consider evolutionary biologists, to be scientists. Evolutionary biologists seem to be for the most part quite inferior mathematicians. The mathematical description of evolution is primitive, fragmented, and contradictory. The field of evolutionary biology seems to be mostly a discipline of myth making to explain away the gapping holes in their theories and lull the atheists to sleep soundly at night.
You call yourselves skeptics, but nothing could be further from the truth. A true skeptic questions conclusions, doubts premises, exposes assumptions. But you have allied yourself with an Intellectual Taliban rigidly enforcing a suffocating Orthodoxy of Thought. No longer will I call myself a skeptic, but rather I proclaim myself an Iconoclast.
My purpose: To vigorously oppose the dogmatic pronouncements of a Scientific Priesthood; to smash the Icons of Materialism, Scientism, Darwinsm; to free Mankind's intellectual and spiritual adventure from the dead hand of a bankrupt 19th century philosophy!
I am your worst nightmare!
i wish that you evolutionists would stop using language like.
"nature is more resourceful than you are".
nature (according to you) is not trying to accomplish anything and we humans are just an accident.. to me this seems improbable, and irreducible complexity just makes it more improbable.
I wish that you evolutionists would stop using language like
"Nature is more resourceful than you are"
Nature (according to you) is not trying to accomplish anything and we humans are just an accident.
To me this seems improbable, and irreducible complexity just makes it more improbable. If something is improbable enough, you might want to question whether it is true or not.
explain that away, mr. scientist!.
it has been widely noticed that various physical constants and parameters are just exactly those needed to permit life.
some of these include the strength of gravity, the strength of the strong nuclear force, the density of the universe, etc.. [see, for instance, http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~js/21st_century_science/lectures/lec25.html].
A whole lot of plagiarism is going on within this thread. I think I'll leave it now.
