Posts by Perry

26

Carts on both ends of the farmersmarket

by Still Totally ADD in

jw
friends

my wife and me have a booth at the local framers market.

there is usually about 12 t0 14 vendors each week on a small short street in town.

what is funny on each end of this short street are cart setups with 3 people on each cart.

Financially Are You Doing Better Than a Year Ago?

by minimus in

jw
friends

this isn’t a usa question.

is your financial situation better or worse or pretty much the same?.

wt can be seen as fake people smugglers, would-be human traffickers.

by waton in

reading about migrants using flamethrowers, acid, unspeakable, -- to storm the fences of european grounds, trying to reach their perceived "paradise", -- the eu", it occurred to me that .

wt has marketed it's efforts as a grand aid to to reach "the kingdom"[paradise] too.. the difference is of course, --while germany, other states, really afford newcomers an almost effortless existence for life, - wt makes such promises, offers a pie in the sky, or lower, but can of itself never fulfill them, has proven that by it's past s failures.

so: does wt guarantee safe passage into paradise?

Perry

Interesting analogy. Allow my indulgence:

Jesus said he was the way, the truth and the life. Also, the Mediator that guarantees safe passage. He proved it by coming back from the dead.

The Wt. says that they are the Way, the Truth, and the Life (spiritual paradise) and that you have to go through the governing body for safe passage.

It is analogous to receiving a free gift ticket from your dear father on the worlds' finest cruise ship to where you want to go. Then, while you are preparing to board, a stranger shows up with a sign on the side of his truck that reads, "Chuck in a Truck Transportation" . Rolling down the window, He yells, "All the rooms were already filled in 1914, your tickets are no good. Jump in the back and I'll drive you myself".

So, after falling for the ruse you find yourself in the back of the truck with many other immigrants. After driving away with you, your family and others, he then gives you a bill for passage to nowhere in particular. When you protest the harsh treatment, he then takes your family and chucks them on the side of the road, never to be seen again.

He then says, "what the hell were you thinking; Something for nothing? Pay up."

9

Requirements for the platform!

by asp59 in

i wrote this letter to organization some years ago.

they never responded.

what was the arrangement in the old jerusalem?.

Perry

Just a FYI. The word "public" is not in the original Greek. It has been added.

The reading mentioned is referring to the bible and writings of the apostles that were available at that time (later to become the NT). It would have been impossible for that admonishment to have anything whatsoever to do with Watchtower publications, since they would not exist for another 2000 years.

Thankfully, we have the exact same reading material a available to us that was available to believers at the time that the counsel was written in 1 Tim 4: 13 that you cited.

To even remotely suggest that Paul had in mind some future publishing company is utterly foreign to the text in its historical setting.

77

Creation, evolution, ???

by Freedom rocks in

was on the bus today and got into a discussion somehow with the driver and ok be ood his work colleagues about whether there's life in other planets, evolution and creation.

the driver believes there must be other life out there, i agree with him that life can't be unique to this planet out of the billions that exist.

his colleague who i think might be a jw by his attitude and reasoning skills thinks we're the only planet with life on it and it was made perfect and exact purposely for humans.

Perry

ttdtt writes:

I have no problem with people who believe in god....but I abhor people like Perry...who not only want to ignore all logic an evidence and reason but want to pass off their bullshit to you as if it were "gospel"

ttdtt,

I am really confused why belief in God and pointing out Evolutionists's own findings about the failure of the Tree of Life to explain known facts should bother you so much. You really abhor me?

1. Why? In your view when you die....... nothing. So what is the point in going around needlessly abhorring people? Isn't that a waste of the precious time of conscious life that you have left? What is it in your psyche that drives you to silence others who are not like you?

2. Christians are taught to turn the other cheek whenever possible, not to judge others, respect their differences, "if possible live in peace with all men". etc. Jesus said: "He that has two coats, let him impart to him that has none; and he that has meat, let him do likewise."

I'm not saying that Western people follow these tenets perfectly, but Jesus has definitely effected Western Culture for the good of all. The ideas of the "Prince of Peace" have proved ....well peaceful. Of all the things you could go abhorring after, you choose me? For quoting your own evolutionary scientists? Didn't we all just leave a cult that abhorred us for questioning their authority and quoting their own literature back to them?

If you will pardon the expression; It seems that you have left the plantation, but still have the slave mentality. In western culture, people are free not because they have it granted to them, nor because they are popular, not because they work for it. They are free because they are made in the image of the God of Freedom. It is a birthright. It is inherent to our construction.

want to ignore all logic an evidence and reason

My arguments have been well thought out and have been presented as a critique of ASSUMPTIONS, not evidence or reason. We all have the same evidence. It is the interpretation of those facts which is guided by assumption that I am questioning.

Why do dinosaur bones stink like rotting corpses? "It smelled just like one of the cadavers we had in the lab" claimed Mary Sweitzer. Dr. Horner confirmed 'Oh, yeah, all Hell Creek bones smell,'.

How can dinosaur bones still stink like a corpse after 80 - 200 million years ? (That's longer than it takes for the Rocky Mountains to weather down and be raised back up again by tectonic forces)

I broke the story to all the posters on this forum back in 2005 when fresh dinosaur tissue was discovered. The atheists predictably attacked the messenger. This one discovery alone destroys the standard evolutionary model for any reasonable person not chained to an ideology and assumption of vast age.

At that time, my assumption (that stinking rotting dinosaur corpses are young and not old) allowed me to predict:

1. Many other dinosaur bones would be found to have soft tissue

2. Blood cells and blood fragments would be confirmed

3. Many other assumed objects of tremendous age would be found to be not-so-old-after all. In other words, a prediction could reasonable be made that other biological material would be found and that the material would not be correlated to the supposed age of the rock layers where they were found.

4. Many atheists would morph into science deniers

All these predictions have come true with far greater support than I could have imagined. The internet is where cults go to die.

Unlike Cofty, where his assumptions lead him to believe that he is related to an oak tree, these facts, lead me to believe that the standard Darwinian portrait is a cult. People who leave the Watchtower and swallow this worldview have simply drilled out of one prison cell into another in my opinion. As a result they bring themselves under new masters such as yourself who will severely criticize and berate them if they deviate from the tenets of this new religion.

Romans 1: 23

Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into... birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.... Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: ...And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

Who knowing the judgment of God.... have pleasure in them that do them.

But the good news is:

God took on human nature and provided himself as the perfect lamb, so that a death would occur for everyone who believes: The payment for sin - "the wages of sin is death". In God's wisdom, he gives us a choice. We can choose to allow Jesus' death as our own personal substitute, in our place and be welcomed into the eternal family of God. The inventor of life personally guarantees your life and happiness.

Or you can reject his offer, argue about the severity of a death penalty for sin, etc.

Our assumptions govern every aspect of our lives.

77

Creation, evolution, ???

by Freedom rocks in

was on the bus today and got into a discussion somehow with the driver and ok be ood his work colleagues about whether there's life in other planets, evolution and creation.

the driver believes there must be other life out there, i agree with him that life can't be unique to this planet out of the billions that exist.

his colleague who i think might be a jw by his attitude and reasoning skills thinks we're the only planet with life on it and it was made perfect and exact purposely for humans.

Perry

Onager,

I can see that if that is your assumption about "science", how you could easily come to that conclusion. However, it just doesn't work that way in the real world.

Professor Richard Lewontin, a geneticist , probably said it best concerning evolutionary researchers:

He wrote this very revealing comment. It illustrates the implicit philosophical bias against Genesis creation—regardless of whether or not the facts support it.

‘Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, [like Cofty believing he is related to an oak tree] in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.

It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.

This is why I have written quite a bit on the nature of illusion, deception / perception and how our assumptions dramatically impact our view of reality. It has little to do with intelligence or education level.

If you take the time to read some of the quotes that I posted above by EVOLUTIONARY Scientists regarding the phylogenetic tree that Darwin suggested, you can plainly see and grasp the struggle that they are having, as well as why. While accepting that the data does not support a common ancestor assumption, they express bewilderment and frustration at the discordance. The cause is their assumption.

I also have an assumption. Genesis 1: 1-11 : God created animals according to their kinds. Neither assumption is "science"; but which fits the facts better?

Remember the optical illusion I posted previously? Assumption is a powerful thing. No matter how certain that someone believes that squares A & B are different.... they are identical. Our assumptions cause the discordance.

And, I cannot repeat this often enough: ASSUMPTIONS ARE NOT SCIENCE, especially when dealing with histories that you can't replicate.

77

Creation, evolution, ???

by Freedom rocks in

was on the bus today and got into a discussion somehow with the driver and ok be ood his work colleagues about whether there's life in other planets, evolution and creation.

the driver believes there must be other life out there, i agree with him that life can't be unique to this planet out of the billions that exist.

his colleague who i think might be a jw by his attitude and reasoning skills thinks we're the only planet with life on it and it was made perfect and exact purposely for humans.

Perry

Every argument can be distilled down to - 'complexity; therefore god'.

To further that, creationism has no predictive power.

Hi Onager,

Every assumption provides a basis for claim making. But, both the assumption and the claims are not testable, repeatable science when it comes to examining history. History is unique in this regard. Therefore, historical assumptions are not science in the commonly understood definition of the term as in Scientific Method. It is deceptive to use "science" in conjunction with theories, assumptions and postulates when this is the common understanding.

What we can do is formulate assumptions that we believe best fits testable science.

A creation model looks something looks like the above with different kinds of animals having distinct histories. Instead of a single ancestor, there are many.

Speciation and adaptability would occur within each KIND of animal. In other words, there are limits on speciation "according to its kind". Species and Kind are somewhat difficult to define, on both sides of the issue, but a creation model would generally predict that speciation would occur from a lack, or rearrangement of information, not more of it.... which is exactly what the evidence shows.

An evolution model looks something like the above.

Consider this sampling of quotes from EVOLUTIONARY scientists, not Creation Scientists.

“No consistent organismal phylogeny has emerged from the many individual protein phylogenies so far produced. Phylogenetic incongruities can be seen everywhere in the universal tree, from its root to the major branchings within and among the various taxa to the makeup of the primary groupings themselves.”, The Universal Ancestor, PNAS, 1999
“I have been particularly struck by the adjectives that accompany descriptions of evolutionary convergence. Words like, ‘remarkable’, ‘striking’, ‘extraordinary’, or even ‘astonishing’ and ‘uncanny’ are common place…the frequency of adjectival surprise associated with descriptions of convergence suggests there is almost a feeling of unease in these similarities. Indeed, I strongly suspect that some of these biologists sense the ghost of teleology looking over their shoulders.”, Simon Conway Morris, Life’s Solution: Inevitable Humans, pp. 127-128, 2003
“Heat map analyses were used to investigate the congruence of orthologues in four datasets (archaeal, bacterial, eukaryotic and alpha-proteobacterial). We conclude that we simply cannot determine if a large portion of the genes have a common history. … Our phylogenetic analyses do not support tree-thinking. … We argue that representations other than a tree should be investigated”, Do orthologous gene phylogenies really support tree-thinking?, Evolutionary Biology, 2005
“An average prokaryotic proteome represents about 3,000 protein-coding genes, the 31-protein tree of life represents only about 1% of an average prokaryotic proteome and only 0.1% of a large eukaryotic proteome. … The finding that, on average, only 0.1% to 1% of each [microbial] genome fits the metaphor of a tree of life overwhelmingly supports the central pillar of the microbialist argument that a single bifurcating tree is an insufficient model to describe the microbial evolutionary process. … When chemists or physicists find that a given null hypothesis can account for only 1% of their data, they immediately start searching for a better hypothesis. Not so with microbial evolution, it seems, which is rather worrying. Could it be that many biologists have their heart set on finding a tree of life, regardless of what the data actually say?”, The tree of one percent, Genome Biol. 2006
“Hierarchical structure can always be imposed on or extracted from such data sets by algorithms designed to do so, but at its base the universal TOL [tree of life] rests on an unproven assumption about pattern that, given what we know about process, is unlikely to be broadly true. This is not to say that similarities and differences between organisms are not to be accounted for by evolutionary mechanisms, but descent with modification is only one of these mechanisms, and a single tree-like pattern is not the necessary (or expected) result of their collective operation.”, Doolittle and Bapteste, Pattern pluralism and the Tree of Life hypothesis, PNAS, 2007
“Many of the first studies to examine the conflicting signal of different genes have found considerable discordance across gene trees: studies of hominids, pines, cichlids, finches, grasshoppers and fruit flies have all detected genealogical discordance so widespread that no single tree topology predominates. These examples highlight the issue of ‘incomplete lineage sorting’ and the need to account for gene tree discordance in phylogenomic studies.”, and “Conﬂicting [phylogenic] topologies are likely to become the norm”, and listed as an outstanding question, “For data sets with high levels of gene tree conflict, how can researchers determine whether an AGT [anomalous gene tree] is likely? How often do AGTs arise in real data sets?” Gene tree discordance, phylogenetic inference and the multispecies coalescent, Cell, 2009
Evolutionary biologist Eric Bapteste: “We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality” and evolutionary biologist Michael Rose: “The tree of life is being politely buried. What’s less accepted is that our whole fundamental view of biology needs to change.”, Charles Darwin wrong about tree of life, The Guardian, January 2009
Lynn Margulis, when president of American Scientist, wrote: “many biologists claim they know for sure that random mutation (purposeless chance) is the source of inherited variation that generates new species of life and that life evolved in a single-common-trunk, dichotomously branching-phylogenetic-tree pattern! ‘No!’ I say. Then how did one species evolve into another? This profound research question is assiduously undermined by the hegemony who flaunt their “correct” solution. Especially dogmatic are those molecular modelers of the ‘tree of life’ who, ignorant of alternative topologies (such as webs), don’t study ancestors.” The Phylogenetic Tree Topples, 2006
“The irrefutable demonstration by phylogenomics that different genes in general have distinct evolutionary histories made obsolete the belief that a phylogenetic tree of a single universal gene such as rRNA or of several universal genes could represent the ‘true’ TOL.”, How stands the Tree of Life a century and a half after The Origin?, Biology Direct, 2011

77

Creation, evolution, ???

by Freedom rocks in

was on the bus today and got into a discussion somehow with the driver and ok be ood his work colleagues about whether there's life in other planets, evolution and creation.

the driver believes there must be other life out there, i agree with him that life can't be unique to this planet out of the billions that exist.

his colleague who i think might be a jw by his attitude and reasoning skills thinks we're the only planet with life on it and it was made perfect and exact purposely for humans.

Perry

waton:

I didn't realize you were a Deist. Your previous comments on this thread gave no indication as such. Sorry for the mis-characterization of you as a materialist / naturalist.

Freedom Rocks:

Can I ask how many of you presently study or have studied both creation AND evolution theories to arrive at what you believe to be true now?

Evolution is the standard paradigm that we have all been indoctrinated with. EVERY public nature TV show, school science-book, college biology course and even psychology/sociology classes have as their basic assumption - Darwinian evolution. The internet has changed this bottle-neck of information so that the creation model can be explored without ridicule and in privacy.

I have not read a whole book on creation. I prefer common sense approaches that are meaningful to me and effect my life. I like discovering and unveiling deception. I am fascinated by man's limitations of perception especially in light of his intelligence. Seems really lopsided. Assumptions are a primary way in which deception occurs in the human mind. As you might have guessed, I have dabbled in sleight of hand and illusions (not anything occult) since childhood.

Here is an example of an embedded assumption within a question:

"Why would you want to leave Jehovah's Organization"?

Examination: In order to answer this question, a person must first assume that God uses the WTBTS as His vehicle of Salvation from death. The actual question is just misdirection. The real theory gets posited just by attempting to answer the question. See how that works? Of course a little bible reading reveals that Jesus is the sole Mediator and Savior of man, not the Watchtower. But, once embedded, the assumption takes the place of the Word of God (truth).

Assumptions are very powerful once embedded into our minds as they provide foundation for further (false) logic. As WRONG as these towers of logical structures are, they can seem absolutely rock solid to us. The Adelson Illusion aptly illustrates this phenomenon:

Do squares A & B seem different shades to you? They are exactly the same shade of grey. Don't believe me? Put a sheet of paper up to your screen and mark where to make two cut-outs over the two subject squares. (You can also print it out first) Cut out and replace over your screen (or paper if you've printed it). You will now see the squares A & B as identical.

Why can't we see the shades as they actually are? ASSUMPTION. We expect the cylinder to cast a shadow on the checkerboard, and because we are used to compensating for shadows in "real life" we perceive and compensate for the shadow we assume has been created by the cylinder.

All assumptions are not deceptive or not useful. In things that we are unable to test empirically, like things really far away or in the past, assumptions help us to complete a theory.

Again, assumptions are not science.

Cofty, made the following announcement earlier on this thread:

Every living thing from humans to oak trees to bacteria evolved from a common ancestor

Cofty's assumptions lead him to believe that he is related to an oak tree. If he wants to believe this, that's his right to do so. But, its not science. It's assumption....it is his religion.

Here's a list of 3000 scientists who challenge the assumption of Darwinian evolution. (The font is very light.... may have to cut and paste)

Here's another huge list of Phd's.

And these are just the ones that are brave enough to come forward and put their names and jobs on the line to stand up for free speech. As is evident on this discussion board, those that question the standard Darwinian worldview are severely ridiculed.... and in the real word they get fired, miss promotions, etc.

I am thankful for these brave souls.

On the other hand, if some like Cofty choose to assume that they are related to oak trees, that's their business and I would fight to the death for their right to continue to practice their religion..... away from my children of course.

77

Creation, evolution, ???

by Freedom rocks in

was on the bus today and got into a discussion somehow with the driver and ok be ood his work colleagues about whether there's life in other planets, evolution and creation.

the driver believes there must be other life out there, i agree with him that life can't be unique to this planet out of the billions that exist.

his colleague who i think might be a jw by his attitude and reasoning skills thinks we're the only planet with life on it and it was made perfect and exact purposely for humans.

Perry

Vidiot,

Of course creationists posit an uncaused Cause. This is called an assumption. So, there is no reason to claim that you are just now figuring this out. It has always been so. (And no one is claiming that this is testable science. )

Gen. 1:1 makes this clear. “In the beginning (time) God”. He is assumed to be self existing.

The rest of the verse : created the heavens (three dimensional space) and the earth (matter).

So, from the very first verse in the Bible a person can ascertain that God is self existing and brought time, space and matter into existence simultaneously.

But, Waton claims something just as religious (if not more) when he believes that an uncaused explosion created Laws, intelligence, vast information, and consciousness. This is his chosen religion. And, it is his right and should not be disparaged by us for his choice.

But as I pointed out, his belief is not science. It is an assumption.

12

New JW.org Logo

by Not_Culty in

.

Perry

I like how some are just starting to struggle to get out, while others are bookin' it.

Brilliant.