From a reliable source: First talk was the WatchTower discussion with children. Second talk was about personal testimonies. A person was in jail, and now he's a good JW - type of thing, examples from every-day life. Third talk would have been interesting to listen to. The English brother went into detail about the different forms of leprosy. The leprous man told Jesus: "If you want to, you can heal me." And Jesus said: "I want to." Not sure about the connection, but he then started discussing the GB. Sounds to me he was comparing the work of the GB with that of Jesus. Not sure about that though. Are the GB having an identity crisis? The more it they mention themselves and their role, the more it must be true. Overall it would have been a most "happifying" occasion.
Posts by Vidqun
-
13Extra-Ordinary Meetings taking place at Kingdom Halls at this hour....???
by AFRIKANMAN inin south africa there are meetings taking place at the kh's at this time involving video hookup as well......anyone know anything or is similar occurring in your neck of the woods this week-end ??
all involved not just the elite elders ..
-
-
-
25
Watchtower's "New Light" re Babylonish Captivity, November 2016 WT
by Room 215 inhas anyone noticed the wt's most recent shell-game revisionism in the november study tractazine, relating to the shifting of its "babylonish captivity" doctrine, from a 3 1/2-year period around the ww 1 years, to a period now spanning about 16 centuries, or from the 4th century (constantine's legal recognition of christianity) to 1919?.
-
-
Vidqun
Blondie, there's a slight problem with their interpretation. They seem to conveniently avoid or ignore the identity of the beast from the abyss (Rev. 11:7, 8). This is actually the scarlet-colored wild beast, who "was, but is not, and about to ascend out of the abyss," which they identify as the League of Nations, later to become the United Nations (Rev. 17:8). Now, according to their definition, the beast "that ascends out of the abyss," killing the two witnesses, must be the United Nations. And this is where the first problem comes in. The League of Nations only came into existence in 1920. It wasn't around during World War I. The League was only created after the Great War, as a result of it. A footnote in the Revelation Climax-book (p. 167) backtracks and dishonestly calls this beast the beast from the sea by equating "abyss" with "sea."
Second problem is the chronological sequence of the seven seals, the three woes and the seven trumpet blasts. According to their theology, World War I started with the running horses, caused by the opening of the first four seals. The two witnesses are killed during the period of the sixth trumpet blast, ending the second woe, which would point to the future (cf. Rev. 9:12, 13; 11:15-18).
-
12
Trump in Prophecy
by Vanderhoven7 intwo weeks ago i got an email from a friend saying that according to a recent prophecy, trump would win the election by a landslide.
as i dug into it, i found the following:.
http://www.charismanews.com/opinion/57209-shocking-2011-prophecy-about-donald-trump-becoming-president.
-
-
Vidqun
This reminds me of a professor of one of the American Universities, on CNN (many weeks before), predicting that Trump would win. The woman anchor was incredulous, reminding him that this was contrary to what the polls predict. What he did, he looked at all the elections since the 19th century. The pattern he found was the candidate that did well in the primaries, and bad in the actual presidential race, won the election. The anchor reminded him that this was no ordinary presidential race, and there were a lot of factors that made this one unique. The professor was adamant, insisting that Trump would be the victor. He was right all along against popular opinion. That's the scientific method for you.
On the other hand we have TB Joshua, a prominent evangelist preacher from Nigeria that predicted Clinton would win. Well, she lost and he deleted the post quickly after that. That was the unscientific, quasi-religious way of doing things. One up for science.
-
113
I am deeply ashamed that I didn't accept evolution until a few years ago...
by ILoveTTATT2 inso... i live in mexico and i am helping with an esl class (english as a second language).
actually, i am helping with two classes.
i get two days a week in which i just stand there and have a debate with the class, encouraging as many as possible to just talk... in english.. anyways, i like talking about subjects that generate debate.
-
-
Vidqun
Vidqun: Yes, TD I believe you’ve hit the nail on the head. Gitt and associates base their findings on their study of language and computer code. I agree with Gitt, one could and should classify information as information and Universal Information.
I believe Gitt is in error when he classifies the DNA information system as a mere language. It’s much more than a language. It’s a coded operating system with an error correcting system and a two way communication system all thrown in. We can only surmise how energy is distributed and the role of enzymes to speed things up. Remember, the DNA gives instructions and receives instructions: Structural protein is needed. Structural protein is manufactured. The process is stopped when a saturation point has been reached. Yes, the cell is a little microcosm with far reaching consequences. It originates life, sustains life and reproduces life.
That brings me to one of Gitt’s questions:
Biological systems are more complex than technological systems. Should there not be a specific definition of information from biological systems?
Gitt: It is true that biological systems are far more complex than our technological inventions. It is also possible that there may be other-than-UI forms of information encoded within the DNA molecules. If and when other-than-UI forms of information are discovered, these must be unambigiously defined. In the mean time, the definition of UI, derived from human natural and machine languages, perfectly characterizes the ‘information’ that is present in the DNA of all organisms-specifically within the DNA/RNA Protein Synthesizing System (DPRSS). Therefore, at least for the DRPSS, the definition of UI is appropriate and scientific laws that govern its domain can be applied. “Without Excuse,” p. 247.
Vidqun: Deduction (take note, this he deducts or infers from what was previously stated).
Universal Information can only be created by an intelligent sender.
The ‘information’ conveyed by the DPRSS qualifies as UI.
Therefore, UI in the DNA RNA Protein Synthesis System must have been created by an intelligent sender.
This brings me to two relevant questions, especially for you A Ha. I was in error. An intelligent sender is not a prerequisite for his definition as UI. I assumed it was. I was wrong:
Does the sender also belong to your definition of Universal Information? If that were true then the conclusion would be, of course, that the sender exists.
Gitt: The sender is not part of nor a prerequisite for the definition of Universal Information. In either case it would be a circular argument. All scientific laws are established by observation and experimentation and not prejudiced by assumptions or prerequisites. When we investigate an unknown system we have to determine whether all four distinguishing attributes of Universal Information are present. If so, then we can apply the Scientific Laws of Universal Information to reach the conclusion that the UI in the unknown system must have been created by an intelligent author. “Without Excuse,” pp. 248, 249.
Vidqun: Remember the Enigma Machine of the Germans. It was designed and built by German scientists in WW II. The English could only break its code if they had one in their possession. Now, the Enigma Machine is crude in comparison to the code of the DNA information system.
The criteria for information seem to be mostly subjective.
Gitt: Yes, the criteria for information may seem subjective because there are several ‘definitions’ for ‘information.’ However our criteria for Universal Information are based on careful observation of human natural and machine languages. We began by observing and establishing a hierarchy of five levels, the lowest being statistical with progressively higher levels, i.e., cosyntic, semantic, pragmatic and apobetic. Further study revealed that the upper four levels are distinguishing attributes that together unambigiously define Universal Information. Therefore the definition of Universal Information (UI) is: A symbolically encoded, abstractly represented message conveying the expected action(s) and the intended purpose(s). “Without Excuse,” p. 242. [Cursive script his.]
-
113
I am deeply ashamed that I didn't accept evolution until a few years ago...
by ILoveTTATT2 inso... i live in mexico and i am helping with an esl class (english as a second language).
actually, i am helping with two classes.
i get two days a week in which i just stand there and have a debate with the class, encouraging as many as possible to just talk... in english.. anyways, i like talking about subjects that generate debate.
-
-
Vidqun
A Ha and TD, the problem might lie with my interpretation of Gitt's thesis. Putting it in one's own words is not always the answer. Then one's own interpretation comes through and not always that of the author. So let me again work through what he says and perhaps I can clarify some of the points. I know he distinguishes between information and Universal Information (UI). He does questions and answers in his book "Without Excuse." Let me give the questions. If anyone is interested in an answer, let me know and I will give his specific wording for it.
Your criteria seem to be mostly subjective?
Is it information when I am both sender and receiver at the same time?
Would a photograph be Universal Information according to your definition?
Is Universal Information created when lottery numbers are drawn?
Is there a conservation law for UI similar to the law of Conservation of Energy?
Does UI have anything to do with entropy as stated in the Law of Thermodynamics?
Natural languages are changing all the time. Doesn't this contradict your thesis that coding conventions should be conserved?
Are synergetics, founded by German physicist Hermann Haken, an indication that order can emerge from disorder and thus evolution would be possible?
What is your view of the Miller experiments that are cited as proof of chemical evolution?
The SOS signal is periodic and is viewed as UI. Doesn't that contradict the conditions of UI?
Can new UI be created through mutations?
When the structure of a crystal is studied under a microscope, who is the sender in this instance?
Has your definition of information been selected arbitrarily? Could there not be other possibilities?
Biological systems are more complex than technological systems. Should there not be a specific definition of information from biological systems?
Biological systems often has the capacity to adapt to the environment. Shouldn't this be seen as either an increase or creation of UI by material means?
Can scientific laws change with time?
Does the sender also belong to your definition of UI? If that were true then the conclusion is, of course, that the sender exists.
Doesn't the application - scientific laws have no exceptions - preclude a priori process that may exist?
How many scientific laws are there?
Have you presented your concept of the Scientific Laws of Universal Information to your peers? How long have you taken to compile the concept in its present form?
-
113
I am deeply ashamed that I didn't accept evolution until a few years ago...
by ILoveTTATT2 inso... i live in mexico and i am helping with an esl class (english as a second language).
actually, i am helping with two classes.
i get two days a week in which i just stand there and have a debate with the class, encouraging as many as possible to just talk... in english.. anyways, i like talking about subjects that generate debate.
-
-
Vidqun
A Ha, welcome to a debating forum. That's what one does in a debate. You bring up an objection to my argument. I attempt to overcome the objection. You state your point. If I disagree, I say so and give you the reason, and so forth. Some arguments will be good, others bad, and some in between.
But you remind me of Cofty. He likes to state his case. Beware if anybody disagrees with him. Then you will be accused of many things, including dishonesty. You are doing exactly the same thing. If you feel that DNA is not part of an information system, that's your problem. Feel free to believe what you want. I know what I believe. And evolutionary arguments are contrary to logic, something that my simple mind is unable to grasp. Please do not hold it against me.
When I hear of an abused person staying loyal to his or her spouse who does the abusing, I always think of the humble Amoeba. The Amoeba is "intelligent" enough to move away from adversity. But we as intelligent human beings are sometimes plain stupid. We often remain where we are. The person who is abused becomes the accomplice of the abuser (Oprah).
Or the little swallow knows not to defecate in his own nest. We, as "intelligent" humans have not learnt from it. We continue abusing the planet and everything on it (Vidqun).
And this is why I view discussions of evolution vs. creation important. If there is a Creator, then everything belongs to Him. He will not allow humans to go past the point of no return. He will also rid Himself of those that cannot or do not want to be rehabilitated. That's unfortunately the way I see it, whether you like it or not. I know, it's is contrary to your beliefs. And that's what debating is all about, see?
-
113
I am deeply ashamed that I didn't accept evolution until a few years ago...
by ILoveTTATT2 inso... i live in mexico and i am helping with an esl class (english as a second language).
actually, i am helping with two classes.
i get two days a week in which i just stand there and have a debate with the class, encouraging as many as possible to just talk... in english.. anyways, i like talking about subjects that generate debate.
-
-
Vidqun
A Ha, why are you stuck on this one definition of sender/receiver? There's obviously a problem with my and your definition of "intelligent." I gave you the example of artificial intelligence or AI, which you ignored. Strictly speaking, a non-animate object cannot be intelligent. Yet a machine, i.e., a computer can intelligently translate a sentence from one language into another. What else should one call it? Intelligence is most widely studied in humans, but has also been observed in non-human animals and plants (Wiki). Some define "intelligent" as being able to solve problems. In this life you need to be intelligent to survive. Amoeba is "intelligent" enough to protect itself and move away from danger. It is intelligent enough to recognize unfavorable conditions and form a cyst around it to survive. Bottom line, behind it all there's a hugely intelligent intellect that did the programming. Here's a Dictionary definition of the word intelligent. Look at 1, 3 and 4:
adjective
1.
having good understanding or a high mental capacity; quick to comprehend, as persons or animals:
an intelligent student.
2.
displaying or characterized by quickness of understanding, sound thought, or good judgment:
an intelligent reply.
3.
having the faculty of reasoning and understanding; possessing intelligence:
intelligent beings in outer space.
4.
Computers. pertaining to the ability to do data processing locally; smart:
An intelligent terminal can edit input before transmission to a host computer.
Compare dumb (def 8).
5.
Archaic. having understanding or knowledge (usually followed by of). [Cursive script added.]
-
113
I am deeply ashamed that I didn't accept evolution until a few years ago...
by ILoveTTATT2 inso... i live in mexico and i am helping with an esl class (english as a second language).
actually, i am helping with two classes.
i get two days a week in which i just stand there and have a debate with the class, encouraging as many as possible to just talk... in english.. anyways, i like talking about subjects that generate debate.
-
-
Vidqun
No A Ha, your missing the point. The big question is: How did Amoeba end up with a coding system in the first place? Did the organic and inorganic molecules one day decide on a cooperation agreement to form a coop? After coming together they randomly formed a system to protect their newly formed coop, and to replicate the coop for it to multiply. The coding system of its DNA developed by itself? So yes, in the light of the evidence, an intelligent sender is still necessary for it to get going (creation and biogenesis). It cannot get going by itself (abiogenesis).
Take the argument a step further. This Amoeba now becomes ambitious. It and its colleagues now decide to colonize and turn into a multi-celled organism. But now they have to rearrange their coding system anew to accomodate the new reality. Now things get complicated. Mitosis, to replicate, would not be enough. A multi-celled organism, in order to survive and multiply, will be needing a new way of reproduction, i.e., meiosis, to survive. It will also have to develop new organelles to utilize sunlight and CO2, initiating the process of fotosynthesis, etc.
-
113
I am deeply ashamed that I didn't accept evolution until a few years ago...
by ILoveTTATT2 inso... i live in mexico and i am helping with an esl class (english as a second language).
actually, i am helping with two classes.
i get two days a week in which i just stand there and have a debate with the class, encouraging as many as possible to just talk... in english.. anyways, i like talking about subjects that generate debate.
-
-
Vidqun
A Ha, replication is their way to procreate. When an Amoeba replicates through mitosis, nuclear transcription would take place. The new Amoeba would be the beneficiary. Information from the original Amoeba would be passed on to the replicated Amoeba. Similarly, some Amoebae form cysts in unfavorable conditions. The process insures their survival. This time the Amoeba would benefit itself. In Amoebal terms it would be “intelligent” in the sense that it would conserve and multiply its species.
-
113
I am deeply ashamed that I didn't accept evolution until a few years ago...
by ILoveTTATT2 inso... i live in mexico and i am helping with an esl class (english as a second language).
actually, i am helping with two classes.
i get two days a week in which i just stand there and have a debate with the class, encouraging as many as possible to just talk... in english.. anyways, i like talking about subjects that generate debate.
-
-
Vidqun
Yes, TD, I view human language and computer language as Universal Information (UI), being a non-material entity, not the property of matter, and having an intelligent sender and receiver. The question is: Could the DNA of a living cells be viewed as a source of UI? If so, then it must have an intelligent compiler or programmer. If not, then it would have originated randomly by natural processes, thus spontaneous generation and abiogenesis. The former has been disproved by Louis Pasteur in the 18th century, and I believe the latter process to be impossible. Of course the evolutionists would reject this out of hand because if true, it would sink their beloved theory.