rem

Joined

• started 24 topics
• posted 2,514 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by rem

• 
  8

  My list of 32 questions-Part B

  by Goldminer in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  1.do we approach god through christ(jn 14:6)or through his organization?

  2.if the "faithful and discreet slave" was put in place in 33 c.e.

  to disperse the "proper food at the proper time" ,thrn who,or where was the "faithful and discreet slave" from 100 c.e.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  rem

  Goldminer,
  
  Great questions... reminds me of my "questions" document that I posted years ago and gave to my father. He immediately sent them to his local elders which created quite a stir. Fun times!
  
  Ah the memories...
  
  rem
• 
  20

  What the Bleep Do We Know!? -anyone seen this movie?

  by ithinkisee in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  .

  i thought it was fairly o.k.

  - maybe it was too built up for me by others.. your thoughts?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  rem

  ithinkisee,
  
  I think the link you provided above pretty much spells out the credibility of this "experiment". It looks like James Randi is offering the million dollar prize to anyone who can replicate this, as it would most probably be magic. :)
  
  I did find it interesting from what I've read about the movie (I have not yet seen it) that they claim that the Native Americans literally could not see the European ships as they approached because they had no concept of them in their mind. From the link you posted above, here is a pretty damning rebuttal:
  
  "A common labourer... brought the news that he had seen 'a range of
  mountains, or some big hills, floating in the sea'. Montezuma...
  ordered one of his four chief advisers... to go to ask the Mexican
  steward near the sea if there was something strange, on the water;
  and, if there were, to find out what it was...
  
  The people concerned came back to say that the news was true: two
  towers, or little hills, were to be seen on the sea, moving backwards
  and forwards. The agents of Montezuma insisted on going to look for
  themselves. In order not to expose themselves, they climbed a tree
  near the shore, They saw that... there certainly were mountains on the
  waves."
  
  From page 48 of "CONQUEST: CORTES, MONTEZUMA, AND THE FALL OF OLD
  MEXICO," by Hugh Thomas.
  
  I don't know where the primary source is, but I'm not sure where the Ramtha cult got the idea that the Native Americans couldn't see the ships. Could they just be making crap up??? :)
  
  rem
• 
  157

  Evolutionary establishment tactics

  by hooberus in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  wednesday evenings (august 24th) fox news program "the oreilly factor" featured an interview life after "intelligent design" with dr. richard sternberg, editor, of the peer-reviewed journal "proceedings of the biological society of washington.

  " dr. sternberg's home page discusses the recriminations he faced by certain members of the evolutionary establishment after publishing an arcticle by another person advocating the possibilty of intelligent design in the peer reviewed journal.

  http://www.rsternberg.net/

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  rem

  Hooberus,
  
  Don't you ever get tired of strawmen?
  
  Notice - even in Mayr's expanded definition - no hint of the "origins of life" is included. I never said the definition I gave above was the absolute be-all-end-all. But what it does, however, is limit the scope to something that mostly resembles the definition of the scientific study of Evolution as real scientists do their work. Including the origins of life anywhere near the definition shows a gross misunderstanding of the Theory and/or intellectual dishonesty.
  
  rem
• 
  157

  Evolutionary establishment tactics

  by hooberus in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  wednesday evenings (august 24th) fox news program "the oreilly factor" featured an interview life after "intelligent design" with dr. richard sternberg, editor, of the peer-reviewed journal "proceedings of the biological society of washington.

  " dr. sternberg's home page discusses the recriminations he faced by certain members of the evolutionary establishment after publishing an arcticle by another person advocating the possibilty of intelligent design in the peer reviewed journal.

  http://www.rsternberg.net/

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  rem

  Hooberus,
  
  Also to say that the Theory of Evolution as defined above has little explanatory power is laughable. Of course it has little explanatory power about ultimate origins - because it has nothing to do with that. It does, however, have much explanatory power regarding the relatedness of life on earth and genetic studies and is useful in helping us understand much about life on earth.
  
  The Bible's explanation of how the current life we see today got here has zero explanatory power and zero usefulness understanding the relatedness of organisms, genetic studies, and even the creation of cures for diseases, etc. An explanation that is not useful at all is most probably wrong.
  
  rem
• 
  157

  Evolutionary establishment tactics

  by hooberus in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  wednesday evenings (august 24th) fox news program "the oreilly factor" featured an interview life after "intelligent design" with dr. richard sternberg, editor, of the peer-reviewed journal "proceedings of the biological society of washington.

  " dr. sternberg's home page discusses the recriminations he faced by certain members of the evolutionary establishment after publishing an arcticle by another person advocating the possibilty of intelligent design in the peer reviewed journal.

  http://www.rsternberg.net/

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  rem

  Hooberus,
  
  >> I am familiar with this definition. This is one of the definitions that evolutionists like to use to establish the "fact" of evolution (indeed it would). The problem is that it is so bland that it is compatible with virtually any origins scenario (from creationism, to panspermia, to universal common ancestry, polyphyletic origins, etc). Its really of little explanatory value. In fact, it doesn't even necessarily even require the formation of new genes, merely that frequencies of existing genes are changing (perhaps back and forth ultimately to exactly where they were before). In reality the above definition it is more accurately a definition of what population genetics studies.
  
  Well now you're starting to get the picture. You would just LOVE to argue a strawman, wouldn't you. It doesn't matter what you FEEL the definition of the Theory of Evolution should be, it can only be what it is.
  
  Remember, Darwin's book was called "Origin of Species"... not origin of life. Even Darwin did not touch on the topic of origins because that was not what the theory was about. Any origins hypothesis is speculative at this point, but Evolution as defined is well observed and documented.
  
  And you are correct - Evolution is compatible with many different origins scenarios - even creation of the first biological organisms by one or more gods. So, what is your complaint with the Theory of Evolution again?
  
  rem
• 
  157

  Evolutionary establishment tactics

  by hooberus in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  wednesday evenings (august 24th) fox news program "the oreilly factor" featured an interview life after "intelligent design" with dr. richard sternberg, editor, of the peer-reviewed journal "proceedings of the biological society of washington.

  " dr. sternberg's home page discusses the recriminations he faced by certain members of the evolutionary establishment after publishing an arcticle by another person advocating the possibilty of intelligent design in the peer reviewed journal.

  http://www.rsternberg.net/

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  rem

  Hooberus,
  
  This is a widely accepted definition of the Theory of Evolution used by Biologists:
  
  "In fact, evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next."
  - Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology, 5th ed. 1989 Worth Publishers, p.974
  
  The Theory of Evolution is a theory of Biology. Before living organisms existed there was no biology. Thus Abiogenesis is not a part of the Theory of Evolution.
  
  It is common for people to use the term Evolution in the casual manner as you presented, but that is not what we are talking about when we refer to the Theory of Evolution. Therefore, unless you plan on discussing something different from the rest of us, I suggest we use the definition accepted by mainstream scientists in the field and not some harvested quotes that don't necessarily reflect the mainstream or modern view.
  
  For more information, please see the following link:
  
  http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html
  
  Cheers,
  
  rem
• 
  3

  Chimp DNA Sequenced, Interesting Article

  by Big Dog in

  1. social
  2. current

  i found the last couple of sentences of this article particlularly interesting.

  any thoughts?

  is this dr. collins a scientific heretic/hack, or is the question of what makes us human more than a purely scientific question?scientists find chimps, people are 96 percent identical.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  rem

  Hooberus,
  
  If the ICR does the research well, then that is great. I'm skeptical, though, based on past performance.
  
  It does seem silly, though. You might as well study genetic samples of rabbits to track their relationship with the literal Easter Bunny. I call it the mitochondreal easter bunny hypothesis. Trying to prove the existence of mythological characters with science is quite amusing, really.
  
  Next we can take the genetic material from children's teeth to find their relatedness to the Tooth Fairy. :)
  
  rem
• 
  67

  Ouija boards Do you feel they are real or not?Any personal experiences?

  by Ticker in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  i've had several expereiences with ouija boards, some interesting, some disturbing, and as skeptical as i try to be i have to admit i have seen it personally say things and do things that i can not logically explain.

  some say its your sub-conscience, some say its spirits, others say its demons.

  i am just wondering if any of you have had experiences with the ouija board, what they were, and what you believe about them, supernatural or just another simple amusement?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  rem

  >> I can divine water - I had a witch teach me. I can tell someone how deep their well is, and have them confirm it. I had a witness - a lineman electrician - who me "divination" with two bent copper rods. When you cross a water pipe or electrical conduit, the rods cross. He used it on the job.
  
  I sincerely doubt it. Dowsing has been tested *exhaustively* and no one has ever done better than chance. There's a lot of water underground and it's pretty hard to miss. Anyone can do just as well as you by randomly picking a spot to dig.
  
  rem
• 
  112

  Stem Cell Research article

  by DevonMcBride in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  in today's wall street journal there was an excellent article about stem cell research.

  the united states used to be number 1 in science research.

  we are now number 2 and continually on the decline even more.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  rem

  I think you make a lot of sense, MS. I, too, am uncomfortable categorizing a clump of cells/zygote/fetus as not alive. I don't believe a clump of cells constitutes a person, but when I think of non-life I think of prions and viruses - and even then there is controversy. This is certainly a complex topic. Great to hear different points of view.
  
  rem
• 
  112

  Stem Cell Research article

  by DevonMcBride in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  in today's wall street journal there was an excellent article about stem cell research.

  the united states used to be number 1 in science research.

  we are now number 2 and continually on the decline even more.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  rem

  As you can tell, my views are far from concrete on this issue, but I do believe there is a potential for a greater good with stem cell research using aborted embryos. I believe this outweighs the negative aspect of destroying potential human life because on the continuuom of potential life I see a zygote as closer to a clump of cell than an actual organism with a higher probability of human life. Again this is arbitrary, but in my context the good outweighs the bad by a large margin.
  
  Where is the line drawn when a fetus becomes "human"? Again, it's arbitrary for me and i don't know the answer at this time... perhaps when pain is possible, sentience begins, probability of life hits a certain threshold (98% ?), etc. Then, for me, the equation becomes lopsided and the right of the child outweigh any "greater good".
  
  I guess what I'm trying to say is that I believe the issue is too complex for a simple rule of "conception = human". It seems like simplistic black and white thinking to me.
  
  I am an atheist, but I'm definitely not "pro-abortion" (is anyone?). I think abortion can be seen as both good and bad depending on the context.
  
  rem