This JW family has embraced the new kind of Witnessing.
Put your neighbor in your trunk and tell the to say "Jehovah" ten times while you drive them into the New System.
Posts by Perry
-
29question about the go bags.
by goingthruthemotions inits been a minute since posting, have been trying to put this cult in my review mirror and just live life.
but you know this beast rears it's evil head.
my wife found my crisis of conscience book and out came the horns plus i guess what she is hearing at the meetings isn't helping either.
-
-
-
28
Has Robert Ciranko replaced Don Adams as president of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania ?
by EdenOne inrobert ciranko has been a "helper" of the governing body in the writing department.. don adams (born 1925, presumably 91 years old now) has been president of the wtbts since 2000. .
however, in recent official posts (april 2016), robert ciranko is identified as "president of the watch tower".
does anybody know what happened and if this is an official change?.
-
-
Perry
If we hold on tightly to the skirt of a spiritual Jew they will lead us to the New World.”
Here are a few scriptures to show just how wrong this man is when characterizing his hope:
Jeremiah 17:5 - Thus saith the LORD; Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the LORD.
Psalms 118:9 - better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in princes.
Psalms 118:8-9 - better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man.
Galatians 6:3 - For if a man think himself to be something, when he is nothing, he deceiveth himself.
Romans 13:8 - Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.
Ephesians 2:8 - For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Proverbs 3:5-6 - Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.
John 15:4 - Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me....for without me ye can do nothing.
-
50
Overwhelmed
by Freedom rocks indoes anyone else feel overwhelmed on what to believe?.
i've been doing lots of research on beliefs, evolution, creationism but i feel no further forward about what i truly believe.
for example i looked at the fossil record and tiktaalic and thought great it proves a lot but then i've seen counter arguments on youtube of people basically saying its a load of rubbish and doesn't prove anything.
-
-
Perry
StarryNight,
The findings were published in the peer reviewed journal Human Evolution. The findings directly impact the theory of evolution. For example:
It is classic evolutionary textbook biology, to assume that species with large, far-flung populations—think ants, rats, humans—will become more genetically diverse over time.
But is that true?
"The answer is no," said Stoeckle, the lead author.
-
61
Simple introduction to the theory of evolution
by Diogenesister inhi new folks, lurkers and trolls.
i thought i would post this simple but interesting video which shows how scientists bring multiple lines of evidence together to prove evolution is true; for example:.
comparative anatomy.
-
-
Perry
TD,
You do realize that many genes and traits are dormant, turned off, or otherwise not expressed; but still present in the Genome of individuals?
What was there to prevent God from flipping a few switches when fashioning Eve from Adam's rib, or even rearranging expressive genes from the complete genome that was already available from Adam? All I'm saying is that cloning does not follow the premise of an Eve-from-Adam scenario where Adam's genome was packed with all the diversity God wanted.
Nipples: During the first several weeks, male and female embryos follow the same blueprint, which includes the development of nipples. However, at about six weeks of gestation, a gene on the Y chromosome induces changes that lead to the development of the testes, the organ that makes and stores sperm and produces testosterone, according to the book "Exploring the Biological Contributions to Human Health: Does Sex Matter?" (National Academies Press, 2001).
After the testes are formed, the male fetus begins producing testosterone at about nine weeks of gestation, changing the genetic activity of cells in the genitals and brain. But by then, those nipples aren't going anywhere.
Additionally, a single chest design may make the genetic code simpler, more efficient, and less prone to error. Nipples are also an aid to sexual pleasure. Men and women have the same number of nerve endings in this location. God’s design of the human body is wise beyond imagination (Psalm 139:14).
The fact that males may carry some undeveloped "female" traits and females may have some undeveloped "male" traits like undeveloped sperm ducts behind their ovaries is not surprising to me since the cell groupings for the sex organs for both sexes start out the same.
Are you suggesting that this is evidence of evolution? If so, how? I don't see the connection.
-
50
Overwhelmed
by Freedom rocks indoes anyone else feel overwhelmed on what to believe?.
i've been doing lots of research on beliefs, evolution, creationism but i feel no further forward about what i truly believe.
for example i looked at the fossil record and tiktaalic and thought great it proves a lot but then i've seen counter arguments on youtube of people basically saying its a load of rubbish and doesn't prove anything.
-
-
Perry
Here's a recent large sweeping gene survey study that claims 90% of all animals appeared recently at the same time as man. Amazingly, the study also claims that "species have very clear genetic boundaries, and there's nothing much in between." Sounds close to what you’d expect to find based on the Genesis account of origins.
This is exciting news for creationists.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=817&v=6qPsJ_a5gZA
Why is this of interest? Well for me the answer is obvious: If we were created by a being who is capable of starting life as we know it, it is reasonable to assume that he has the power over death as well.
If he does exist, we just might be able to make friends with him and keep living. Why should we cease to exist if we are friends with someone like that?
-
50
Overwhelmed
by Freedom rocks indoes anyone else feel overwhelmed on what to believe?.
i've been doing lots of research on beliefs, evolution, creationism but i feel no further forward about what i truly believe.
for example i looked at the fossil record and tiktaalic and thought great it proves a lot but then i've seen counter arguments on youtube of people basically saying its a load of rubbish and doesn't prove anything.
-
-
Perry
Hi Freedom Rocks,
As others have noted, it is important to recognize our limitations when looking to our origins. Acceptance of this fact is a milestone in our development here on this 3rd rock from the sun. I posted this on another thread recently:
My basic premise is that while all people are equal, ideas are not equal. And, while we cannot go back in time and see for ourselves what happened, we can try to ground certain conclusions with things we know to be facts (premises) now. Things like:
1. All life comes from previous life
2. All information comes from a mind
3. All books have authors
Etc.
A Transcendent God (one outside of our 3 dimensional universe) conclusion doesn't contradict the premises I listed above.
An evolutionary origin does violate them since there are no examples that could falsify the above premises listed.
Neither conclusion can be proved empirically, but that is not the point. The point is; which conclusion best harmonizes with known facts? Of course, if one or more of my premises are not true, then there might be a basis for a different conclusion. But short of that, a Transcendent God is a better conclusion.
The above might be a good place to start. -
61
Simple introduction to the theory of evolution
by Diogenesister inhi new folks, lurkers and trolls.
i thought i would post this simple but interesting video which shows how scientists bring multiple lines of evidence together to prove evolution is true; for example:.
comparative anatomy.
-
-
Perry
TD,
Thank you for your reasoned and polite take on the subject. I do realize that talking about Creation on a forum full of folks who's lives has been utterly decimated by religion is going to elicit strong feelings, even ridicule. However, I do think that reasoned and honest dialog is possible, even in light of all of our pain.
My basic premise is that while all people are equal, ideas most certainly are not equal. And, while we cannot go back in time and see for ourselves what happened, we can try to ground certain ideas with things we know to be facts (premises) now. Things like:
1. All life comes from previous life
2. All information comes from a mind
3. All books have authors
Etc.
A Transcendent God conclusion doesn't contradict the premises I listed above.
An evolutionary origin does violate them since there are no examples that could falsify the above premises listed.
Neither conclusion can be proved empirically, but that is not the point. The point is; which conclusion best harmonizes with known facts? Of course, if one or more of my premises are not true, then there might be a basis for a different conclusion. But short of that, a Transcendent God is a better conclusion.
Concerning the discussion about the rib account: The account doesn't address genetics at all. So, to suggest that a lack of discussion in the account about genetics is a basis for diminishment of the veracity of the action is a non-sequitur. The conclusion doesn't follow the premise since there are no genetic reconfigurations (other than male/female) going on in a special creation scenario.
The question I addressed was regarding whether or not cloning was a necessary outcome of Eve being from Adam. My answer was that XX from XY did not require ANY additional genetic information. All that was needed was the XX version of XY... a subset multiple of XYYet, Eve was not a clone because she was genetically different - the female version of Adam. If God included all possible variations that he wanted in the genome of Adam, then why should Eve receive less (or more)?
There are all sorts of genetic re-configurations possible using any number of segments of DNA that go into action once the process is started with conception. Some traits even skip a generation or two. But that is not the issue with special creation of the original pair which is assumed in the Creation model.I find it interesting that the rib bone is a rich source of hematopoietic bone marrow containing multipotent, pluripotent, and unipotent stem cells. Ribs are used all the time in modern bone-graft surgeries, especially facial reconstruction, because unlike other bones, if removed properly, ribs grow back to a large extent if not totally.
If you or I were facing one of these kinds of facial reconstruction surgeries with bone removed from our rib, I doubt that a discussion about genetics would even occur with the doctor. They simply are not related.
Another interesting quote:
- Michael Egnor Professor of Neurosurgery at Stony Brook:
- "I never use evolutionary biology in my work. Would I be a better surgeon if I assumed that the brain arose by random events? Of course not. Doctors are detectives. We look for patterns, and in the human body, patterns look very much like they were designed. Doctors know that, from the intricate structure of the human brain to the genetic code, our bodies show astonishing evidence of design.
That’s why most doctors -- nearly two-thirds according to national polls -- don’t believe that human beings arose merely by chance and natural selection. Most doctors don’t accept evolutionary biology as an adequate explanation for life. Doctors see, first-hand, the design of life." (Evolution News & Views: March 2007) -
Regarding the conclusion that all embryos are female, I found this:
Mammals don’t start as females, they start as a blank slate with XX/XY genetic code, and for the first 5-6 weeks of gestation only the X gene expresses. Then when the Y gene starts expressing (in genetic XY-males), it releases androgens like testosterone, represses some X gene expression (and estrogen development), and expresses specific Y genes. This process is called sexual differentiation and it leads to what we call male and female.[1][2][3][4][5]
... the idea that “all mammals start as females” or specifically “all humans start as females” is not technically correct. It is more accurate to say, “until the sex-determination process begins, a developing human (technically an embryo) has no anatomic or hormonal sex (just XX or XY genetic code)
It is more accurate to say, “until the sex-determination process begins, a developing human (technically an embryo) has no anatomic or hormonal sex (just XX or XY genetic code)
In other words, at the moment of conception, the new life is genetically male or female. What the X gene is expressing in the first few weeks is neither male or female. Before the 5-6 week mark, all embryos have undifferentiated structures that will become internal and external sex organs. The suggestion that after the cell divides into two that it is "female" because no male sex organ is observable is a simplistic, clumsy and unnecessary characterization in my opinion.
-
61
Simple introduction to the theory of evolution
by Diogenesister inhi new folks, lurkers and trolls.
i thought i would post this simple but interesting video which shows how scientists bring multiple lines of evidence together to prove evolution is true; for example:.
comparative anatomy.
-
-
Perry
But if not cloning then it's weird that God used genetic material from Adam, rearranged some of his DNA and got rid of the Y chromosomes to form Eve.
Why is that weird? Engineers do that sort of thing all the time. They take a successful design and use deletion (and obviously other things too) and duplication to create variations.
-
61
Simple introduction to the theory of evolution
by Diogenesister inhi new folks, lurkers and trolls.
i thought i would post this simple but interesting video which shows how scientists bring multiple lines of evidence together to prove evolution is true; for example:.
comparative anatomy.
-
-
Perry
LUHE,
I don't see why cloning is a necessary outcome of this account.
The components needed to make Eve were already in Adam’s cells, i.e. human chromosomes, which carry the genetic material to make the human body. All humans have 46 chromosomes, but sex is determined by only two of them – called X and Y.
Males have one X and one Y. Females have two Xs. The other 44 chromosomes are called autosomes, and are the same in males and females. Therefore, to make female cells from male cells God already had all the different kinds of chromosomes he needed.
He had to take out the Y and duplicate the X, but He did not have to invent any new kind of chromosome that did not already exist, but if you can invent chromosomes in the first place – such a small act as deletion and duplication would be relatively simple. The XY configuration of the male seems to corroborate this account. This of course would have been unknown to the writer of Genesis. But, it fits what we know today.
Males need one X to live, and the Y for male reproductive functions. Females need two X’s for female reproductive functions .
Therefore, according to the Genesis account Adam and Eve were separate, unique creations, with Adam being fully male and Eve being fully female. God did not need to create any new material to make Eve, nor was Eve simply a clone of Adam – she was a creation of God, a different individual, but still one flesh with Adam.
-
61
Simple introduction to the theory of evolution
by Diogenesister inhi new folks, lurkers and trolls.
i thought i would post this simple but interesting video which shows how scientists bring multiple lines of evidence together to prove evolution is true; for example:.
comparative anatomy.
-
-
Perry
Anders,
Genesis (which I assume is true... forms the basis of my logic). I can't find anything that would ultimately contradict it.
Naturalism/Materialism (also an assumption) assumes there are only "natural" causes of things. I suppose you could fly in a space craft for billions of years and exhaust all efforts to find an example of life not coming from non-life and information not coming from a mind. But short of that, it is already confirmed to be impossible. No one can provide one example to the contrary. You are welcome to believe in that sort of thing if you want, it's just not science. It's a religion, and not a very good one. It's like trying to find a book that has no author or being told to sit in the corner of a round room. Some concepts are just impossible, and can be proved to be so in a number of ways.
Method of speciation? The same one we observe today of course, breeding and speciation within kinds. No one has ever observed evolution in action outside of "kinds". Evolution outside of "kinds" is a RELIGION, much the same as the ruthless one we all escaped from where deviation form the party line was severely criticized & dealt with harshly by the elders - the agents of the cult.
I cannot help but notice that after nearly 18 years on this forumn, many of the most critical posters of Creation are former elders who have a history of bullying. They get really bent out of shape when interacting with someone who chooses to believe differently than them. Their deviant, anti-social behavior has apparently followed them into their new paradigm. But, I digress.
Space time and matter all came into existence at the same time... most everyone agrees with this. I say, they were inventions born in the mind of God, who by necessity must exist outside of our 3 dimensional space-time universe. Theologians and Philosophers call this type of God a Transcendent God.... meaning that he transcends our space time experience. In other words, things like "before" and "after" cannot be applied to His experience as some sort of limitation since they are inventions of his.... just like Genesis states.
This is a satisfying answer to me. It fits with the order and precision of the known universe and explains how there could be a "First Cause" in a cause and effect universe such ours. Effects do do appear without a previous cause. Yet, how can this be if the universe had a beginning? The assumption of a Transcendent God satisfies this apparent contradiction.Half Bananna,
We all have the same evidence, but we have different assumptions before we start to examine it. That's just the way it is.
When the word science is used, most folks think of the scientific method...where things can be replicated. This method works in the present and can be projected into the future. When dealing with the past, it's not nearly as straight forward. Some say historical science is a misnomer, and will never escape the theory category.I also have a theory: In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.
What are your thoughts on the two scientists I posted about earlier who became creationists after studying the facts? Do you think their experience should cause us to examine the way we use the terms "science" and "religion"?
Repost:
[Quote]: A few years ago Sir Fred Hoyle and Dr. Chandra Wickramasinghe, Professor and Chairman of the Department of Applied Mathematics and Astronomy, University College, Cardiff, Wales, became interested in the problem of the origin of life. Both had been evolutionists and lifelong atheists. After making certain assumptions about the requirements for the origin of the simplest cell imaginable, they calculated the probability of the necessary protein enzymes arising by chance on this planet in five billion years. The probability turned out to be one chance out of the number one followed by 40,000 zeros! 41 [That's more molecules that there are in the universe]
This is flatly zero, so they calculated the probability of life evolving anywhere in the universe, assuming that every star in the universe (about 100 billion times 100 billion) has a planet like the earth and that the universe is 20 billion years old. For all practical purposes, according to their results the probability is not insensibly different than zero.
Sir Fred Hoyle said that the probability of the evolutionary origin of life is equal to the probability that a tornado sweeping through a junkyard would assemble a Boeing 747! One is free to believe that, of course, but it should not be called science.
Hoyle and Wickramasinghe are now saying that wherever life exists in the universe it had to be created. Wickramasinghe has stated that this evidence constitutes empirical evidence for the existence of God (they are not biblical creationists, since neither believes the Genesis account of creation, but they believe life had to be created).
Did Sir Fred Hoyle and Professor Wickramasinghe become creationists because of their religion? Obviously not, for they were both atheists when they began their study. They became creationists in spite of the religious beliefs they held at that time. Most evolutionists assert that to hold a belief in creation is religion. According to this view, then, when Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, in ignorance of the facts, held to an evolutionary view of the origin of life, that was proper science; but the moment the scientific evidence convinced them that life could not have arisen naturally, therefore life had to be created supernaturally, their views instantly ceased to be science and became religion! [Of course this is absurd]
Other scientists, such as Yockey, 42 Salisbury, 43 Coppedge, 44 and Wilder-Smith 45 have come to similar conclusions or have expressed serious doubts. A spontaneous evolutionary origin of life can be positively excluded based on the proven principles of chemical thermodynamics and kinetics and the laws of probability. The theory of an evolutionary origin of life is Twentieth Century mythology.
[end quotation]