In the book used before this one, the one called "Youth - How to make the worst out of it!", young JW:s could learn that "In fact, masturbation can lead into homosexuality." I wonder what there sources were? perhaps it happend to some governing body member ;)
Nowhere
JoinedPosts by Nowhere
-
36
Young People Ask... ANSWERS THAT SUCK.
by shamus inremember that stupid book that they had, "young people ask, answers that work are weird?
minimus just mentioned it in a thread.... they have that young people ask section in the awake!
magazines.
-
-
-
5
The Evil Slave Class
by Evesapple indoes anyone remember who that represented exactly?
as far as what i remember it represented those that were part of the remnant (144,000) and then became apostate.
and was this a made up title?
-
-
Nowhere
I think this was made up, when Rutherford took conrol over bethel and kicked every oposer out. The ones being kicked out, where refered to as "the evil slave". Good thinking of the borg, they managed to silent them, because no one wanted to be assosiating with the evil slave...
-
50
Can God exist outside of time
by setfreefinally in.
some say god exists outside of time and space therefore he can predict the future.. any comments?
-
-
Nowhere
Einstein once said: "When forced to summarize the general theory of relativity in one sentence: Time and space and gravitation have no separate existence from matter."
You cannot separate time, the question could be refraised to "can God exist in our universe?"
Can God be at two different places at the same time? ("at the same time" in newtonian relativity) If yes, God must be outside of time, if no, God would be in our universe and would have been dicovered, measured and captured long time ago. At least he wouldn't be the God that the bible speaks about.
-
27
THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE
by Nowhere ini found this in one of my course books.
it's quite interesting, added to a chapter dealing with dynamics of friedman-robertson-walker universes.
it looks to me like this man doesn't deny the possibility of a diety, and he is a respected scientist, no creation-pseudo-nonsens-scientist.
-
-
Nowhere
funkyderek: Are you trying to use the anthropic principle to prove there is a god, or to prove that none is needed or something else altogether?
I think the anthropic principle seems to be a likely explanation of our universe, and doesn't have to depend on small probabilities. God for me exists, but has nothing to do with the anthropic principle or the universe. To me, God is what caused the universe into existence, and by that he doesn't have to be a living being. He can be pure chance or absolute law or nothing but chemical and electrical substances and signals in my brain or something else, but I'm satisfied with that.
Tashawaa: if you feel backed into a corner with your reasoning, perhaps accept a different perspective (and disregard it if necessary
????? I am not impressed by your reasoning, and I don't feel backed into a corner.
Tashawaa personally believe "life" is hardy, not rare, and exists in the most difficult of conditions.
How do you define life? Is life possible in a universe without molecules? or maybe even without matter?
anti-absolutism: my life is certainly a lot more enjoyable now that there are so many theories that I allow to enter my mind
I certainly agree.
Elsewhere: This is a very arrogant thought... suggesting that the universe is custom designed for us.
Uh? That is not what I meant . I meant the universe is very unlikely, but with a multitude of universes, the unlikeliness becomes an likeliness .
Elsewhere: If there are other universes and they also have life, then the life in them will also be formed around the natural properties of each universe.
Do you believe there exists life in a possible universe without matter? I don't.
rem: If anything, the universe is favorable to the existance of rocks.
If anything, the universe is favourable to hydrogen and empty space.
rem: Yep, certainly looks like this lil' universe was created just for human life!
Have you even read my posts? How can you read that into my posts?
Abaddon: Nowhere, where in the world did you equate a theory of everything with the Universe being explained by the anthropic principle?
I didn't, I meant that it will be one of them who explains our universe, either the TOE or the antropic principle, but I don't believe in an unique universe, that formed by mere chance. The TOE would explain why there couldn't be other possible universes. The anthropic principle is the other extreme, that there is an unlimited multitude of universes, and therefor it's likely to find ourselves in one that permits our existence .
Abaddon: The TOE could show there are multiple Universes
Yes, but not infinitely many. If there is infinitely many universes, we will never find the TOE.
Abaddon: You are saying that it is sooner or later going to happen, AND that it is a very very unlikely scenario?
NO, is my english that bad? I meant : If there are infinitely many universes it is going to happen sooner or later. But if there is only one, but not unique universe (no TOE), that is to me a very very unlikely scenario, which I don't believe in.
Abaddon: I believe we're here due to probabilities. Lots of them.
I beleive we are here due to either exact laws and constants in which case we will sooner or later find the TOE, or we are here due to the fact that there are infinitely many possible laws, constants and universes (the anthropic principle), and therefore, our presence is obvious.
But I will never accept that we are here in a one and only universe, which could have formed in any way. Of course I believe we could have been pigs, eating metal or evolve without carbon, but that is only details. The gravitational constant, the speed limit of light, the expansion rate of the universe are not details , those are necessary for a universe which permits life as we think of life.
Abaddon: You can, it's okay. But you don't have proof, and the lack is a logical problem inescapable without internal proof.
We don't have proofs yet, but we will sooner or later be able to explain the universe, one way or the other, I'm dead sure of that. Either a TOE or an anthropic principle.
MYOHNSEPH: ...
I suggest that you read through what I wrote about that. Two main points. A child birth is not an event caused by pure chance, we can explain why a certain child is born, and second, it has absolutely nothing, NOTHING, to do with any theory of the universes. the probabilities are independent.
MYOHNSEPH: Exactly what is "natural selection"?
This is taken from an article in Scientific American:
Chance plays a part in evolution (for example, in the random mutations that can give rise to new traits), but evolution does not depend on chance to create organisms, proteins or other entities. Quite the opposite: natural selection, the principal known mechanism of evolution, harnesses nonrandom change by preserving "desirable" (adaptive) features and eliminating "undesirable" (nonadaptive) ones. As long as the forces of selection stay constant, natural selection can push evolution in one direction and produce sophisticated structures in surprisingly short times.
As an analogy, consider the 13-letter sequence "TOBEORNOTTOBE." Those hypothetical million monkeys, each pecking out one phrase a second, could take as long as 78,800 years to find it among the 2613 sequences of that length. But in the 1980s Richard Hardison of Glendale College wrote a computer program that generated phrases randomly while preserving the positions of individual letters that happened to be correctly placed (in effect, selecting for phrases more like Hamlet's). On average, the program re-created the phrase in just 336 iterations, less than 90 seconds. Even more amazing, it could reconstruct Shakespeare's entire play in just four and a half days."
But you cannot compare the evolution theory with the TOE or anthropic principle.
-
27
THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE
by Nowhere ini found this in one of my course books.
it's quite interesting, added to a chapter dealing with dynamics of friedman-robertson-walker universes.
it looks to me like this man doesn't deny the possibility of a diety, and he is a respected scientist, no creation-pseudo-nonsens-scientist.
-
-
Nowhere
Hi everybody!
I've had a lot of things going on right now, a busy period, but I'll try to answer your responses .
-
11
funny math problem
by Nowhere intwo old friends meet each other on the street:
- how are you and the kids?
you have three sons don't you?
-
-
Nowhere
Congratulations!
-
7
Is the Society next?
by RR inchurch to take donations on charge cards
mon feb 17,10:10 am
stockholm, sweden - worshippers can now pay their church collection with a charge card at least in one village in northern sweden.
-
-
Nowhere
Actually, I've seen card-readers at JW convetions. And people used them to. JW:s are pioneers in finding new ways to get the money.
-
11
funny math problem
by Nowhere intwo old friends meet each other on the street:
- how are you and the kids?
you have three sons don't you?
-
-
Nowhere
:Since the two friends have not seen each other for a long time -- presumably more than one year this immediately eliminates all but the last three possibilities
My fault, bad choice of words (or bad English grammar). The kids can be of any ages 1-36, and 'oldest' were supposed to cover both the 'oldest' and the 'older' possibility. It isn't a trick question were the answer is found in the words (or grammar).
You are definitely on the right track with a process of elimination, and the first step was correct.
-
11
funny math problem
by Nowhere intwo old friends meet each other on the street:
- how are you and the kids?
you have three sons don't you?
-
-
Nowhere
:This is certainly wrong because I think there should only be one answer
There is a one and only answer.
:I ignored the seeming irrelevant info
You cannot solve the problem, without the info given.
Ok, maybe not funny haha, but funny because it is simple, but looks so hard.
-
11
funny math problem
by Nowhere intwo old friends meet each other on the street:
- how are you and the kids?
you have three sons don't you?
-
-
Nowhere
Two old friends meet each other on the street:
- How are you and the kids? You have three sons don't you? How old are they now?, the first friend asks.
- Yes, I have three sons, the other one answers. The product of their ages is 36, and the sum of their ages is the same as the number of windows on that house over there, the second friend answers.
-I still don't know the answer, there is something more you don't tell me?, the first friend says.
- Right, I'm sorry, I forgot to tell you that my oldest son has got red hair, the second friend answers.
Now the first friend knew the ages of the kids.
How old are the kids?