Hi elderNewton, I think you are referring to GM canola. I don't think Monsanto (or anyone else) sells GM wheat, or any other licensed wheat variety, but I could be wrong.
shepherdless
JoinedPosts by shepherdless
-
14
Are you an agronomist or a farmer? If so, I need your help. Related to Miracle Wheat
by ILoveTTATT2 ini am doing some investigation on the miracle wheat episode, and i have a question that i don't know the answer to, and i can't find the answer online.. it seems that, from what i have learnt online, that wheat is a self-pollinating, "perfect flower".
this means that once there is a strain that has a quality that's desirable, all you have to do is plant it, and that feature will remain "forever".
essentially the new plants are all clones.given that information, this statement by penton does not make sense:.
-
-
-
14
Are you an agronomist or a farmer? If so, I need your help. Related to Miracle Wheat
by ILoveTTATT2 ini am doing some investigation on the miracle wheat episode, and i have a question that i don't know the answer to, and i can't find the answer online.. it seems that, from what i have learnt online, that wheat is a self-pollinating, "perfect flower".
this means that once there is a strain that has a quality that's desirable, all you have to do is plant it, and that feature will remain "forever".
essentially the new plants are all clones.given that information, this statement by penton does not make sense:.
-
-
shepherdless
From memory (and this is a long time ago) my father would use bags of wheat from the previous season to plant a crop. Same with barley. I am not 100% sure of that though! and he is long since deceased, so I can't ask him.
I know there are plenty of plants you can't just replant the seeds and get the same crop, and it seems corn is an example. (Although the corn variety used 110 years ago probably wasn't a hybrid.)
The following is from the website of one of the 2 biggest suppliers to the agricultural market in Australia. It does suggest that some farmers at least do just use wheat from the previous season.
-
40
Next steps for the Austrailian Royal Commission
by Coded Logic insince the watchtowers' lawyers have (a) failed to make any recommendations to the arc that would bring the watchtower up to date with "best practices and procedures" (b) have failed to submit a proposal for victim restitution (c) have failed to secure funding for a redress scheme and (d) have completely dismissed all the arcs' findings - what's the royal commission's next course of action?.
i see two possibilities:.
) negotiate a settlement with the watchtower.
-
-
shepherdless
Coded Logic: No problem. My guess is most cases will be settled quietly, so maybe not a lot of PR.
Listener: I think we are in complete agreement.
Talesin:
(1) Yes, it sounds like a Canadian RC is similar.
(2) Being the in-house lawyer for WT must be one of the worst legal jobs out there. Your status among your colleagues would be about one notch above being a lawyer for a cigarette company, and you would probably get a tenth of the pay.
(3) In relation to a class action (very complicated topic), given the cases are spread across around 6 jurisdictions, a class action is probably not feasible. In any event, I think the claimants will be as well off, if not better off, claiming individually. (By the way, Australian Courts don't award punitive damages except in extreme cases, if that is what you are thinking.)
-
40
Next steps for the Austrailian Royal Commission
by Coded Logic insince the watchtowers' lawyers have (a) failed to make any recommendations to the arc that would bring the watchtower up to date with "best practices and procedures" (b) have failed to submit a proposal for victim restitution (c) have failed to secure funding for a redress scheme and (d) have completely dismissed all the arcs' findings - what's the royal commission's next course of action?.
i see two possibilities:.
) negotiate a settlement with the watchtower.
-
-
shepherdless
Smiddy and freddo are correct. To expand on that:
The ARC is not a Court. Its powers are limited. It is essentially an inquisitorial body, that has incredible powers to subpoena people and documents, and then cross-examine. With the information gathered, it writes a report. And that is it.
Sometimes, a Royal Commission will also refer matters to the appropriate State or Federal Public Prosecutor, but because of the nature of this RC, it is not likely.
Justice Peter McClellan is a judge of the NSW Court of Appeal, but his appointment as Royal Commissioner is a completely separate role. The Australian Federal Court has no role (apart from a technical role that I won't confuse you with). Jurisdiction in any likely civil or criminal case rests with the relevant State or Territory, and will be run independently of the RC.
There will be no negotiated settlement. It just does not work like that. This is not a USA-style investigation. Possibly, if Watchtower is able to demonstrate that it has changed its internal procedures, it might be mentioned in the final report.
I haven't been following developments closely, but my guess is that we wont know whether the submissions of Counsel assisting the Commissioner in relation to Watchtower were accepted, for a while yet. (The RC has been dealing with a number of other organisations, particularly the Catholic Church.) If the submissions are accepted, the effects as I see it, would be as follows:
1. PRWhat more do I need to say! Further, any journalist will just report the outcome and findings. They treat it like a Court decision.
2. Civil proceedingsThis is the biggest impact. If any victim wants to sue Watchtower (not just the the individual perpetrator) for civil damages in an Australian Court, then the task will be way way easier. No need to subpoena the relevant secret Elders Book or cross-examine an Elder on how a JC is run. The victim's lawyer could just submit the ARC report as evidence of Watchtower's flawed internal processes. 80% of the task is done for them, which of course dramatically reduces the costs and risks of running a case on behalf of a victim.
3. Criminal proceedingsIt may possibly assist some criminal proceedings, but this is a complicated topic.
-
46
Starlight in a Young Universe
by Perry inthe scientific method begins with a faith statement called a hypothesis, and then goes on to look for evidence, for or against support of the faith statement.. secular materialists often change their ideas on exactly how things have made themselves, but never whether they did.. the manifesto for this self imposed mental ban seems to be summed up by geneticist richard lewontin:.
‘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, 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.
-
-
shepherdless
My own 2 cents worth:
Firstly, others have covered it, but:
- The Scientific Method does not begin with a hypothesis. It begins with observation. The hypothesis is part of step 2.
- A hypothesis is a possible explanation of relevant observations. It is marked "hypothesis" to indicate there is no "faith" in it being correct.
Secondly, the Richard Lewontin quote seems fine to me, although I suspect the OP seems to misunderstand the use of the word "materialism" in the quote.
Thirdly, I studied Physics a long time ago, and I was not a great student, but I do recall a page list setting out names of physicists and their various measurements of the speed of light, over time. I recall that each physicist was a bit more accurate, but mostly within the margin of error of the previous physicist. Michaelson was the first to derive an accurate measurement of the speed of light. Wikipedia states Michaelson measured it at 299,853 +/- 60 km/s, with his spinning octagonal mirror, in 1883. The current figure is 299,792.458 km/s, just within the very tight margin of error.
What this means is there has been no measurable decrease in the speed of light since it was first accurately measured. In other words, the basic premise of the OP's article is FUNDAMENTALLY FALSE.
But if the OP still thinks he has a point, I have thought of a very simple way to prove (or disprove) it once and for all. Prior to Michaelson, in 1676, an astronomer named Ole Römer was able to do a very rough calculation of the speed of light by observing variations in the speed of the orbit of Io (a moon) around Jupiter, whilst Earth's orbit was sending Earth in Jupiter's direction, and again 6 months later when Earth was heading away from Jupiter.
The OP could buy a basic telescope, pen, paper, and stopwatch, and repeat Römer's experiment. If light is now slower than it was in 1676, then Io's apparent change in speed will be more pronounced. (Perhaps the data can then be inserted into Einstein's Field Equations, to see what effect that might have on the calculated age of the Universe.)
I urge Perry to carry out this cheap and simple experiment. If he is able to demonstrate a variation, he would almost certainly win a Nobel Prize. If not, it would mean that this entire article is just, for want of a more polite word, crap. -
39
How do you feel about the expression "The Truth"?
by stuckinarut2 init's amazing how the expression "the truth" has become such an ingrained term used by witnesses.. "we have 'the truth'".
"is he 'in the truth'?".
most here have found out so many facts about the organisation, and felt the effects of being "gut-punched" as we realised these facts.. so how do you feel about the expression "the truth" now?.
-
-
shepherdless
One of my in-law relatives uses the term a lot.
To me, it sounds so Orwellian, I feel a slight urge to giggle when I hear it.
-
29
The WT in 10 years time
by Coded Logic ina. in 2026 in what state do you think the organization will be?.
) 9million + members.
) roughly the same amount of members as today (7-9 million)..
-
-
shepherdless
A: 2. (Roughly the same amount of members as today)
B: 3. (Less printed literature in other languages) Reason: There is less need of printed literature generally, and more and more of the world's population that can read, read English.
C: 3 (Less printed literature in English) or possibly 4. The traditional "colportage" business model was weakened in 1990 and has since been broken by the internet. Printed literature has turned from being the primary income earner for WBT$, to just a drain on the business.
D: 3 (Less Bethel's than today)
I think the biggest threat is not membership. It is the finances. WBT$ now has to rely more on member donations and bequests than ever before. I am sure that they will survive, but they will have to make changes. I predict less emphasis on field service and more closed cult behaviour.
Witness carts may be a smart move, because their use hides less emphasis on field service. The fact that carts achieve very little is irrelevant.
If they are smart, they will water down the discouragement of higher education, and go to greater lenghts to retain members.
Looking further into the future (beyond 10 years), they will have the following problems:- the "immenent Armageddon" card will lose more credibility as time goes by;- the lucky guess of 1914 will seem less impressive as it will be just another date in history;- recruiting will become more difficult in wealther countries, as JW's only seem to be able to recruit fellow Christians, and the percentage of the population that believe in God in such countries is on a steady decline. -
29
Why continue to suffer??
by Tigerlove ini occasionally come on this website because i have my eyes on a particular user.
because of that, i end up reading a lot of people's post.
although very interesting and hurt breaking, a lot of them are very strange.
-
-
shepherdless
My 2 cents worth.
Secondly, if there are kids involved, one can't just think of oneself. In our situation, my wife takes my kids to meetings and field service. I actually don't know to what extent they believe the crap. However, there is no way I am going to abandon them to a shyster organisation that discourages higher education and actually wants to ruin their future.
Thirdly, for some, the financial aspects of walking out are potentially devastating.
I have thought a lot about whether it is disloyal to contribute to these bloggs. On one level, yes. However, my wife is being controlled by a parasitic organisation that, by design, contributes absolutely nothing of worth to society or humankind. It is the parasitic organisation I am up against, not my wife.
I am here mostly to learn about WTBT$ (something I should have done long ago) so I know what I am up against and how to fight it. I also to do my tiny little bit to oppose that organisation. I also ultimately want to leave the world a better place than how I found it. The world would be a better place if there is no Watchtower using Jehovah's name to suck up all the time and energy of so many good people on pointless marketing to fellow Christians.
I should also add that my wife actually knows I have occasionally read apostate websites. (She is upset that I have. She says they are full of bitter people with "agendas", are controlled by Satan, and that I should read jw.org to understand the organisation.)
In summary, I consider I am fighting WTBT$, not my wife, and my conscience is clear.
-
57
Despite a 'number' of similar projects being pulled, the Chelmsford Project will continue...
by NeverKnew inthis article suggests that there are projects being halted, but chelmsford isn't one of them.
can someone from the uk tell me if this article was written by a reputable and known publisher?
plans for huge jehovah's witnesses hq continues.
-
-
shepherdless
Sorry correct link:
-
57
Despite a 'number' of similar projects being pulled, the Chelmsford Project will continue...
by NeverKnew inthis article suggests that there are projects being halted, but chelmsford isn't one of them.
can someone from the uk tell me if this article was written by a reputable and known publisher?
plans for huge jehovah's witnesses hq continues.
-
-
shepherdless
Chelmsford clearly has significant contamination issues as well. See the following link:
www.chelmsford.gov.uk./temple-farm
Scroll down to the July 2015 update, for example.