Stilla:
I'm LMAO!!!
Beautiful!
You shuffle and link unrelated equations, better than the Watch Tower Society shuffles and links unrelated scriptures!
Posts by Quotes
-
49Generic thread about supernatural
by FMZ in(event which happened to me that i do not feel that science can explain).
.
(asking for other possible explanations)
-
-
Quotes
-
65
Evolutionist Caught in a Lie
by Kenneson ineugenie scott of the national center for science education has written a retraction, after being slapped with a libel suit.
she wrongly accused roseville, california attorney larry caldwell of presenting for adoption to the school board two books on young-earth creation, one (get this!
) published by jehovah's witnesses.
-
-
Quotes
"As far as how was God created is a kinda moronic question tho"
--- um, why is it "moronic"???
The point is: those who hide their creationist fantasy with the politically correct term "Intelligent Design" argue thusly: anything and everything which is complex and/or intelligent must have an intelligent "designer". Humans, for example, are far, far too complex and intelligent to not have a "designer", therefore they must have been designed (by god).
So this begs the question: if everything complex and/or intelligent MUST have a "designer", then what about god? He/she/it must be orders of magnitude more complex and more intelligent than us puny humans; therefore god must have his/her/its own creator, which is, in turn, orders of magnitude more complex & intelligent that what we call god. Repeat ad infinitum.
See? The entire "Intelligent Design" argument collapses in under the weight of its own illogic.
Now, don't get me wrong. I agree with you, if what you are saying is that any mention of "god", as a scientific explanation for anything, since the end of the Dark Ages, *IS* moronic. But the point is: I.D. fans really have to play by the rules of they game that they made. And that is not moronic, it is only fair. -
65
Evolutionist Caught in a Lie
by Kenneson ineugenie scott of the national center for science education has written a retraction, after being slapped with a libel suit.
she wrongly accused roseville, california attorney larry caldwell of presenting for adoption to the school board two books on young-earth creation, one (get this!
) published by jehovah's witnesses.
-
-
Quotes
Heathen, friend, if you stopped rolling your eyes long enough to read any of the multiple sources already pointed out, you would have your answer.
Of course, if you haven't bothered to do your own homework, and insist on being spoon-fed, I don't expect you to learn anything from my post -- please go back to rolling your eyes, and imagine that because you haven't allowed yourself to see the ample evidence that you are wrong, then you must be right.
For the benefit of those who want to learn, please see "Observed Instances of Speciation" http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html (especially section 5.0 Observed Instances of Speciation) or "Some More Observed Speciation Events" http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
~Quotes, of the "Loves a good eye roll" class -
65
Evolutionist Caught in a Lie
by Kenneson ineugenie scott of the national center for science education has written a retraction, after being slapped with a libel suit.
she wrongly accused roseville, california attorney larry caldwell of presenting for adoption to the school board two books on young-earth creation, one (get this!
) published by jehovah's witnesses.
-
-
Quotes
RefFrank,
No offence, but you are so far away from knowing what you are talking about, it is embarrasing. I am embarrased for you.
It is not "Two Laws of Thermodynamics", it is the "Second Law Of Thermodyanmics". If you want to pretend to have it all figured out, at least try and get the words correct.
Imagine if you were discussion "Immaculate Conception" with a Catholic, and you referred to it as "Ejaculate Conception". Do you think the Catholic would think you have any knowledge about the subject, when you don't even know the proper name of the subject? Seriously.
BTW, this supposed "Evolution violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics" is a completely bogus argument, and has been show to be that. Do you refuse to believe in heavier than air aircraft (i.e. airplanes) because they would violate the laws of gravity? Of course not; the "2nd law" argument has been shown to be a very weak, pathetic "straw man" argument. See http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/probability.html if you care to see a straw man exposed as such. -
65
Evolutionist Caught in a Lie
by Kenneson ineugenie scott of the national center for science education has written a retraction, after being slapped with a libel suit.
she wrongly accused roseville, california attorney larry caldwell of presenting for adoption to the school board two books on young-earth creation, one (get this!
) published by jehovah's witnesses.
-
-
Quotes
An interesting world view:
Trust scientists enough to :
*let them build nuclear power plants within a few miles of heavily populated areas
*trust them with thoroughly understanding Aerodynamics enough to put your life into their hands (and their theoretical knowledge) to get on an airplane
*trust their theories regarding human biology enough to take prescription medecine
*accept without a 2nd thought Plate Tectonic theory
*accept witout a 2nd thought high energy particle physics (even though no one has ever seen a high engergy particle)
*accept current atomic theory, even though no one has ever seen an atom
And yet, in spite of the above, those same people simultaneously believe that on this *one* branch of science, and no other, scientists are a bunch of witch doctors waving their hands and deluding each other, and their current understanding is so flawed that is not worthy even of discussion, let alone researching it enough to formulate and informed counter-arguement.
Evolution *HAS* been observed in the lab, and in the field. It is as solidly established as any other branch of science. Why? Because it uses the Scientific Method: Start with OBSERVATION, formulate a HYPOTHESIS, test hyposthesis by making predicitions, see if the predictiions fit newly found data, if it works call it a provisionally correct theory and repeat ad naseum.
Those taking the time to read and learn more about it will not make untrue, inaccurate, and frankly, embarrasing assertions.
For the rest, simply repeat to yourself: "I REFUSE TO BELIEVE... I REFUSE TO BELIEVE..." BTW, this mantra also works for those of you that still prefer a Earth-centric cosmology, and do not accept the "error-filled" Copernican Revolution which flagrantly puts the Sun at the centre of the Solar System ("Helio-Centric"), and puts *nothing* at the centre of god's universe.
~Quotes, of the "A Mind Is A Terrible Thing To Waste" class -
8
JWs and 9/11
by Jeannine ini am not a jw and neither is anyone in my family.
however, i married into a jw family.
my husband was raised jw, but was never baptised.
-
-
Quotes
A post elsewhere here on JWD was from a (former) Bethelite who was "inside" at the time.
He said in his post that the gates were closed and locked, because there were so many people walking over the Brooklyn bridge, and they didn't want "people just wandering into the building". An announcement encouraged everyone to continue working (i.e. Don't let this affect productivity!!!! This is a business!!!!)
An article on the Witch Power web site shortly after 9/11 quoted two people who had just escaped the towers, and had found there way into Bethel 'for safety' and were given water, etc. Interestingly, the religious affiliation of these two are never mentioned.
I have my own theory: the Dubs did let a small handful of people seek refuge within their ivory towers -- and every single one of those few people were themselves also Dubs that buzzed the intercom and begged to be let in to use the bathroom and promised they were a 'Dub in good standing' and could prove same by identifying their C.O. or mentioning the name of someone in their cong. who was also a bethelite and could vouch for them.
If you read the WTS's article and assume that the victims seeking refuge in Tower Town are Dubs, it all makes sense.
~Quotes, of the "First on the scene with plane loads of supplies" class -
65
I'm an ex-dub as of tonight.
by Pole ini just want to let you know my updated status.
today i had another elder visit.
last time i had a call about a month ago.
-
-
Quotes
Congratulations!
As for the Awake! presentation: Since you identified yourself as no longer a JW, he was able to COUNT HIS TIME. He just slipped in a magazine sale attempt in case anyone questioned him, he could say "well, I tried to witness to him...
~Quotes, of the "happy Scientific American reader" class -
14
Tetrapod Help Me!!!!!!
by gringojj ini am trying to explain to my muslim brother in law how evolution works.
all he ever does is tell me how darwin was wrong about things and he seems to equate darwin not having all the answers to mean that evolution isnt possible, then seems to default to creation as fact.
its really annoying.
-
-
Quotes
Please excuse my jumping in before Tetra.
There are many excellent sources of information about Evolution. Here are a couple:
* Talk.Origins Archive: http://www.talkorigins.org/
* (Book) In the Beginning... A Scientist Shows Why the Creationists Are Wrong by Chris McGowan
Sounds like your friend is using the same old, tired, worn-out, and throroughly disproven arguments. For example, equating "Darwinism" (one proposed mechanism) with "Evolution" and/or "Abiogenesis".
Prepare for the "it's just a theory" claim, which demonstrates a misunderstanding of the Scientific Method and what a "theory" really is. It doesn't mean GUESS, it doesn't mean HYPOTHESIS. I can't wait for the next time someone tries this "theory" claim with me. I will respond: Yes, it is a theory. Like the theory of Plate Tectonics. Tectonic Theory may be incorrect or even seriously flawed, but until someone tells that to the FAULT LINES, the Earth continues to shake and quake. See, the Earth doesn't know it's just a "theory".
~Quotes, of the "Trusts Science enough to get on an airplane" class -
49
Generic thread about supernatural
by FMZ in(event which happened to me that i do not feel that science can explain).
.
(asking for other possible explanations)
-
-
Quotes
(Quotes rolls his eyes upon reading some of the fundamental misunderstandings about what science is and what a skeptic is -- or at least what a skeptic should be)
(Quotes then goes back to his regular day, where everything he sees and touches is a result of Science and Applied Science, and is thankful he is not living in the Dark Ages, when religion ruled the planet and superstition kept humans from advancing beyond the level of Chimps) -
65
Do you secretly wish for a demon attack - serious question
by stillajwexelder in.
i am not trying to compete with fmz as he has a supernatural thread going already but - do you secretlyt wish for a demon attack - serious question - the reason i ask this is because - if i had a demon attack it would mean there was a satan the devil and if there was a satan it would mean there was god.
what i am trying to say in a nutshell is "a demon attack would actually strengthen my faith" where at the moment it is non-existent almost
-
-
Quotes
Interesting question.
I would *LOVE* to have some sort of supernatural encounter. Almost had one once, but I quickly found a rational explaination -- and felt pretty silly at the end!
I would note, IMO, your logic is flawed. If you experienced a "demon attack", that would prove the existence of demons -- and nothing more (actually, it might just be the result of Sleep Paralysis and be a figment of one's confused brain). True, if there were "spirits" then there could be more spirits of varying degrees (i.e. Satan, God) but you would still not have proof of Satan & God.
For example, what if these Demons encounted are the ONLY spirits (i.e. no angels, no Satan, no God)? What if they invented the concept of God and Satan (in the same way that I believe that humans invented God and Satan)???
Having proof of the existence of Demons does not prove the existance of any other spirit creatures... IMO
~Quotes, of the "Careful with logic" class