fyi from north-east england:.
http://www.gazettelive.co.uk/news/teesside-news/johovahs-witness-abused-girls-after-12538877.
jehovah's witness abused girls after luring them with video games, court told.
Richard Oliver - What was this guy D.F./shunned for? The article talks of the JW policy of shunning those accused of this type of crime but I do not think that is accurate...
"I am so glad that these women decided to come forward and have this man face the terrible actions and heavy memories he burdened them with." - cha ching
Are you still glad you judged this man with only a newspaper article to go on?
awake!
1 2017 says on its back page.
the saharan silver ant (cataglyphis bombycina) is one of the most heat-tolerant land animals known.
Perry 7 hours ago
No sensible scientist would comment on their commitment to "Darwinism". This simple fact is beyond all sensible debate.
Perry,
Do you think that the way you have presented this 'quote' above is dishonest? I certainly do because you are presenting 2 unrelated sentences in an effort to make the reader think that this is what Cofty is saying.
The first sentence is about creationist's use of the word Darwinism. The second sentence is in relation to the fact of common descent. You are extremely dishonest...
awake!
1 2017 says on its back page.
the saharan silver ant (cataglyphis bombycina) is one of the most heat-tolerant land animals known.
"There are libraries of discoveries that flat out contradict materialistic theories of origins but are consistent with a Genesis narrative" - Perry
Pulling an idea out of your backside is stretching the definition of "discovery". There are many books that 'prove' that the Earth is flat. Should I be sending my light up globe of Earth back to Amazon and complaining I've been ripped off?
awake!
1 2017 says on its back page.
the saharan silver ant (cataglyphis bombycina) is one of the most heat-tolerant land animals known.
Perry,
I wonder how many of those academics you cite are qualified to give an expert opinion on whether evolution by common descent is nonsense/fact.
Why do you creationists always post that nonsense? Is it because you like to troll or are you lot really that ignorant of how science works that you think the above nonsense you have posted is at all relevant?
Consider: What is Darwinism?
Consider: How many academics (of whatever flavour) do NOT agree with your above post and actually accept the conclusions of the experts?
Consider: What do YOU actually know about this subject ('know' in this context refers to having a working knowledge of a subject rather than copy and pasting an article for AIG)?
Dunning-Kruger...
...would you choose to ban the jw religion?.
if you wouldn't ban them what, if any, changes would you force upon them?.
Yes, because I would like to add a bit of excitement to their lives.
satan loves his own people and hates those who do not share his views, hence only he can use shunning as a weapon.. on the contrary, god is love (agape = unconditional love), cannot have his own people.
(mathew 5:44-48).
all the accounts not in conformity with this principle originated from cleric’s pen (jeremiah 7:31; 8:8).
But Finkelstein it's divine, perfect love and we cannot, as imperfect creatures, appreciate what that means. We are too full of imperfect emotions to be able to love in that prefect and divine way... I hope I got that right, perhaps there is an elder on hand to let me know if I got the gist correct...
i am wondering if anyone is aware of a book or series of videos designed to explain evolution to creationists, (specifically the jw strain of creationism if possible) without being patronizing or overly confrontational.
i would like to have something to recommend to people who challenge evolution, but i know that the sources which convinced me would turn most of them off because of the confrontational and at times condescending tone in which it's presented.. some examples of what i'm looking for would be someone who doesn't claim evolution is a fact until after they have presented all of the evidence that makes it a fact and also have addressed as many counter-arguments as possible..
"I debate this subject with many materialistic atheist PhD scientists" - Raymudas Martini
That sentence speaks enough of your 'credentials' that I now know you know nothing of this subject.
i would like to apologize in advance if any of my information on the biology side of this discussion is incorrect, because unfortunately it is not my strongest scientific subject on account of my being subtly encouraged to view it with distrust.. i've recently debated the of subject of evolution with my father, i made the argument that when viewed over several million years random mutation provides a more than adequate explanation for humans having evolved from a common ancestor with chimpanzees.
then he got this derisive look on his face a waved his hand saying "evolution's explanation for everything is the amount of time involved.".
so i decided i would examine this mathematically.
"For all these there is localized explanation which would show that everything happens according to some law, and law presupposes The Law-giver." - anointed1
No it doesn't! At least not in the sense you are implying here. We are the law givers because it is we that are making observations of our environment. We notice things work a certain way and set out to explain it. We make the laws.
Back to your point now. Unless you can offer up some evidence that a "Law-giver" exists you have no reason to posit a deity over 'it just works that way'. This presupposition is something that Craig Lane talks about a lot. I guess that is the sort of books you are reading and hence the baffelgab above...
i would like to apologize in advance if any of my information on the biology side of this discussion is incorrect, because unfortunately it is not my strongest scientific subject on account of my being subtly encouraged to view it with distrust.. i've recently debated the of subject of evolution with my father, i made the argument that when viewed over several million years random mutation provides a more than adequate explanation for humans having evolved from a common ancestor with chimpanzees.
then he got this derisive look on his face a waved his hand saying "evolution's explanation for everything is the amount of time involved.".
so i decided i would examine this mathematically.
I guess it's turtles all the way down then. Unless you wish to suspend your 'logic' to allow for your preference of deity, whether that be supernatural or not...
the numbers don't lie... definitely slowing down!!.
in the 40´s the average growth per year was 20%in the 50´s it was about 10%they had four decades of solid 5% per yearnow the average for the past 16 years has been 2%.
maybe in the future it will be 1% or 0 or even negative????.
Although I think it is fairly obvious what the answer is with regards to whether the witnesses are increasing at an ever quickening rate, as is often claimed in the hall...
