http://gawker.com/americas-first-openly-pastafarian-politician-sworn-int-1496554452.
isn't diversity wonderful?.
metatron.
Prophecy is wonderful too:
2 Peter 3:3 - Most importantly, I want to remind you that in the last days scoffers will come, mocking the truth and following their own desires.... They deliberately forget that God made the heavens by the word of his command. - NLT
so is the christian hope in heaven or on earth?.
in acts chapter 1the question was raised: 6 so when they had assembled, they asked him: lord, are you restoring the kingdom to israel at this time?
7 he said to them: it does not belong to you to know the times or seasons that the father has placed in his own jurisdiction.. notice jesus never said thered be a change in venue, just that it wasnt up to them to know when..... so what is there from both sides?
Neither. This is a false choice. The hope of Christians is to avoid Judgment after death.
Hebrews 9:27
Acts 10: 42 & 43
in the following from the 2013 edition of the nwt, the watchtower society indicates that when it released its initial 1950 edition, it considered the greek text provided by westcott and hort as its master text.
as a result of these additional masters, the wts made some undeclared changes to the 2013 nwt.
it does not list these changes or give any explanations.. greek text: in the late 19th century, scholars b. f. westcott and f.j.a.
Yes. The occult-practicing Wescott and Hort team was highly valued by Fred Franz.
for the one who has died has been acquitted from his sin.
- romans 6:7 (nwt).
i got a chance to witness to my dad scripture for scripture for one whole hour over the holidays.
Thanks Bobcat....marked in my bible now.
i know this is one huge rant, but i want to put my own questions and doubts in writing.. i am a fading jw who has become agnostic... i still believe in "god" and "jesus," but i simply cannot explain to people why i believe in them.
i just do.. about the existence of god: it is an infinite regress.
"all things were created by someone"... well... who created god?
Adamah writes,
See, you missed that the study's FINDINGS need to be replicable:
So according to your own tedious definition a study is separate from its findings, and only the findings need to be replicated for it to qualify as science? Then it follows that the study of macro evolution hasn't produced any replicatable "findings", suggesting that after 160 years of study, scientists really havent found anything scientific as far as macro darwinian evolution is concerned. This is accoring to your definition, not mine.
But the findings ARE there, they just aren't the findings Darwin expected in his grandiose slime-to-scientist paradigm. And, they are replicatable. Cats stay cats, bears stay bears and so forth. Darwinian evolution seems to me to be a very outdated 19th century theory, especially when you consider what we now know about the incredibly complex biological information strand called DNA. The amount of DNA information that can be stored in a space the size of a pinhead is equivalent to the information content of a pile of paperback books 500 times as tall as the distance from earth to the moon. Where did all this information come from?
A single cell has been likened to the Complexity of a moderrn city with numerous parts that are irreducible complex. Nice video from Harvard University below.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJyUtbn0O5Y
I think most people are fine with manipulating the environment in a study to try and "speed up" the theoretical macro evolution process. Likewise, artificial selection is fine too as far as I'm concerned. But even with all this, in the two studies presented in this thread, a canine still ends up a canine and a bacteria still ends up a bacteria.
This is consistent with a biblical worldview as are thousands of other replicatable scientific "findings".
Based strictly on science, many have concluded that Macro evolution and spontaneous generation are simply elaborate fairy tales for adults. I can see no sound reason to refute this conclusion.
i know this is one huge rant, but i want to put my own questions and doubts in writing.. i am a fading jw who has become agnostic... i still believe in "god" and "jesus," but i simply cannot explain to people why i believe in them.
i just do.. about the existence of god: it is an infinite regress.
"all things were created by someone"... well... who created god?
I should have expected such a response. Your belief system is secure from attack. Congratulations.
jnat,
Why the intellectual personal attack? You provided an example to support your conclusion that Darwinian (Macro) Evolution is true. Instead of supporting the fluidity of one "kind" of animal morphing into another "kind" of animal. The experimant in actuality better supports the biblical view that animals were created according to definite "kinds".
My belief isn't secure from attack as you assert. All you have to do is show me where one "kind" of animal can morph into another kind of animal through the selection process. It is a simple and reasonable request given the assertion of Macro (Darwinian) Evolution. Furthermore, it should be easy to do under controlled circumstances given that the theory claims that this has happened accidentally millions of times.
i know this is one huge rant, but i want to put my own questions and doubts in writing.. i am a fading jw who has become agnostic... i still believe in "god" and "jesus," but i simply cannot explain to people why i believe in them.
i just do.. about the existence of god: it is an infinite regress.
"all things were created by someone"... well... who created god?
Adamah Says:
Where'd you get the incorrect idea that science requires replication?
So just change the definition when it suits you? Information is not simply a tool to attack opponents so long as the end justifies the means. That's unacceptable, to me at least..
UNDERSTANDING HOW SCIENCE REALLLY WORKS - UC Berkley
Scientists aim for their studies' findings to be replicable — so that, for example, an experiment testing ideas about the attraction between electrons and protons should yield the same results when repeated in different labs. This goal of replicability makes sense. After all, science aims to reconstruct the unchanging rules by which the universe operates, and those same rules apply, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, from Sweden to Saturn, regardless of who is studying them. If a finding can't be replicated, it suggests that our current understanding of the study system or our methods of testing are insufficient. ... The desire for replicability is part of the reason that scientific papers almost always include a methods section.
Adamah,
Opponents to your views are going to ignore your posts that are formulated in this manner. Most people don't want to win an argument as much as just sift through some facts and make their own conclusions. Without challenges, You just end up with others with the same mob mentality that agree with you. This is intellectual isolationism.
You said:
MOUNTAINS of counter-evidence exists to disprove the Bible
Really? I've heard similar statements numerous times over the last 13 years on this discussion board. But, I've never heard one convincing argument. I'm willing to give you the opportunity. Instead of a MOUNTAIN, can you just provide one example?
i know this is one huge rant, but i want to put my own questions and doubts in writing.. i am a fading jw who has become agnostic... i still believe in "god" and "jesus," but i simply cannot explain to people why i believe in them.
i just do.. about the existence of god: it is an infinite regress.
"all things were created by someone"... well... who created god?
jgnat,
I read the whole article. There was a self-congratulatory tone to the article. However, this seems to be the point:
"the granddaddy of these experiments--the 11-year, 24,000-generation E. coli cultures in Lenski's laboratory--is telling stories about predictability, chance, and history that other experiments have echoed. All 12 of Lenski's cultures experience the same stresses: a daily boom-and-bust cycle, in which the bacteria are transferred to fresh glucose medium every 24 hours, then undergo 6 hours or so of plenty followed by 18 hours of starvation. All 12 lines have adapted to this regimen; when the researchers do a head-to-head comparison between the evolved bacteria and the ancestral strain, plucked from the freezer and revived, the descendants now grow about 60% faster in their standard glucose-containing medium. All 12 populations show other parallel changes, too--for example, a still-unexplained, twofold increase in cell size."
Big deal. They started with bacteria and ended with bigger bacteria. It's still bacteria. Rather than supporting Macro (Darwinian) Evolution, this seems to demonstrate the incredible resistence of organism to change outside of their "kind" over time. How do you go from this to the outrageous, sweeping claims Darwin made?
i know this is one huge rant, but i want to put my own questions and doubts in writing.. i am a fading jw who has become agnostic... i still believe in "god" and "jesus," but i simply cannot explain to people why i believe in them.
i just do.. about the existence of god: it is an infinite regress.
"all things were created by someone"... well... who created god?
It might be possible to turn a fox into a buzzard, but it would take millions of years.
That's not science. It can't be replicated, no matter how hard scientists have tried..... and boy have they tried. There always seems to be some "just so" story that accounts for something in the "millions" paradigm, and of course the other consistent feature is that it just so happens that it can't be replicated.
See, this is just where my Bull Corn meter just starts whizzzzizng out-of-control.
for the one who has died has been acquitted from his sin.
- romans 6:7 (nwt).
i got a chance to witness to my dad scripture for scripture for one whole hour over the holidays.
Right, but you still will be judged for some sin someone committed at some point in history, somewhere, some time ago.
I've read the bible a few times, been to several churches , all attended regularly, read thousands of pages written on the fundamental doctrines of Christianity, & created a website explaining the historic doctrines guided by none other than common sense and the Holy Spirit. I can honestly say I've never heard of a Chrristian doctrine whereby a person gets judged for someone elses sins. What New Testament scripture teaches this?
