Atomant -
Grow up...
i've been pondering on this question for awhile now, and i'm starting to think this malevolent spirit creature isn't real.
.
do you guys believe satan is real?
Atomant -
Grow up...
http://ed5015.tripod.com/jwbookscirculation.htm.
new light.
predicting world events--yet--containing not even 1 successfully completed prophecy.how is any of it "food"?
Also, it's worth bearing in mind that most of those on that list have been produced due to a real world commercial demand.
In contrast, the WT crowd simply mass produced their publications and distributed them to all the KHs where they stayed until they could fob them off onto an interested party.
what is your level of tolerance for ambiguity?.
ambiguity is a clunky, uncomfortable word, imho.. .
ambiguity means "open to more than one interpretation".
"Indefensible and illogical non-religious beliefs about the nature of reality has been thoroughly indoctrinated into our society" - Perry
Well we are doing our best to rid ourselves of the indefensible and illogical religious beliefs about the nature of reality which have been thoroughly indoctrinated into our society from millennia ago...
https://www.nature.com/news/1-500-scientists-lift-the-lid-on-reproducibility-1.19970.
more than 70% of researchers have tried and failed to reproduce another scientist's experiments, and more than half have failed to reproduce their own experiments.
i didn't know it was so widespread...but it's a big problem in biology/medicine..
The interesting thing about peer review is not the peer reviewed piece itself but how many times that piece is cited by other scientists in their work; indeed not just how many times (if at all) but by who.
The charge against science here is serious and makes you wonder just how our knowledge and abilities have progressed if such things are true.
Well as usual the reality is not quite what is being portrayed in these headline-seeking articles.
Going back to what I initially stated, it is not what the peer reviewed article is, rather it is all about how it affects the scientific community as a whole. When a research paper is released the idea is to publish the findings of experiments and research so all of that teams peers around the world may benefit from the addition of knowledge in whatever field(s) the research has been undertaken. Good and helpful papers will then be cited as reference points in further experimentation which may further bolster the claims of the original paper (or debunk them) and so on and so forth.
After a while you will see certain papers being cited by other groups numerous times, particularly those papers at the boundaries of current understandings or those that are particularly useful for numerous avenues of research.
This is what science is all about after all; the passing on of knowledge
Contrast that with the types of peer reviewed articles that are only published to give support for a politicians angle or for a corporate need. You will rarely see them being cited at all. And why would that be? Because they exist solely to support that immediate goal and have no value as science in and of itself.
Scientists know this; Politicians know this; CEOs know this; The layman generally does not...
This is another reason not to allow yourself to remain scientifically illiterate.
https://www.nature.com/news/1-500-scientists-lift-the-lid-on-reproducibility-1.19970.
more than 70% of researchers have tried and failed to reproduce another scientist's experiments, and more than half have failed to reproduce their own experiments.
i didn't know it was so widespread...but it's a big problem in biology/medicine..
"and less to discover (obviously)"
There's far more to discover now! Let's not forget that science doesn't just try to discover but also attempts to understanding something.
As far as corruption is concerned: there is a lot of money to be made in the next big drug that treats the next big disease... Where there is money there will be corruption...
As far as the OP is concerned: this all depends on the questions asked and the context that the participants were answering in; we also need to know who they were asking specifically.
i'm sure many others noted in yesterday's news feeds, that scientists deciphering the dna of the skeleton remains of a man thought to have died some 10,000 years ago in the south of england, have presented him as:.
as blue-eyed (now that's quite english) but as dark skinned.
and, that's not very english, to the horror of many.. (link: https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2018/02/ancient-face-cheddar-man-reconstructed-dna-spd/ ).
Half Banana -
Excellent past, thank you. I wanted to keep reading but you stopped writing...!
my question is this.
is it wrong for a jehovah's witness to allow an unmarried couple to live together under their roof?
same room, same bed, they are allowing full on cohabitation.
I've no idea whether this person is a troll and to be honest I didn't really think about that due to the other problems I saw in the OP. There was enough biblically inspired bigotry in that post to warrant the poster getting a large slap and that appears to have happened, happily.
If the OP had just asked the question without resorting to adding their own insecurities then I feel the response would have been more positive for them.
Perhaps this will be a good learning point for that person...
did anyone see the trevor macdonald programme in the u.k. last night?
the one about james bulgers killers?
close to the end mr macdonald was walking through an underpass, at the exit, graffitied on the wall in massive black letters was ‘jwfacts.com’ it was plain to see........
"so it did make me wonder if it was a vey strategic shot by some director, producer etc who knows about the JW scandals? ... or was it just coincidence?" - Miss Worldly
I'm seeing Jehovah's hand in this issue...
i'm sure many others noted in yesterday's news feeds, that scientists deciphering the dna of the skeleton remains of a man thought to have died some 10,000 years ago in the south of england, have presented him as:.
as blue-eyed (now that's quite english) but as dark skinned.
and, that's not very english, to the horror of many.. (link: https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2018/02/ancient-face-cheddar-man-reconstructed-dna-spd/ ).
It would make sense that the earliest colonists of the higher latitudes would retain their darker skin pigmentation. The evidence collected so far shows that the rate of our expansion into new territory happened extremely quickly. Once there the new settlers then adapted to their new environment (colder climate and less sun light) and this led to the lighter skin tones giving advantage over darker ones in the main because of our ability now to produce enough vitamin d.
The blue eyes are interesting though. However if this was a recent descendant of the first settlers there would have been a lot of genetic variation in the population whilst the population attempted to fit in with its environment.
my question is this.
is it wrong for a jehovah's witness to allow an unmarried couple to live together under their roof?
same room, same bed, they are allowing full on cohabitation.
"no sinning in the house" - ILewis
Based on all you wrote and that last 'gem' you need to have a serious word with yourself. What on earth does that mean? Let me guess...you will want to reply with some biblical mumbo jumbo crap...
"and now I feel like this house has unclean spirits, the spirit of disobedience is in here" - ILewis
Is this some kind of joke?
You need to get your nose out of other people's business.